Editorial: A clear decision in four judicial races

As usual, voting for judgeships may prove Minnesotans' most puzzling challenge come Election Day. Most judicial seats on the ballot will feature an incumbent running unopposed. On the few contested races, voters will have received little information with which to evaluate their choices.

Fortunately, in four statewide contests for appellate court seats, voters' decisions are easy. Challenged state Supreme Court incumbents Alan Page and Helen Meyer, along with challenged Court of Appeals incumbents Larry Stauber Jr. and Randolph Peterson, all deserve reelection to six-year terms.

But while the challengers to these capable jurists don't measure up, several of them do raise an issue Minnesotans are likely to hear more about: Whether the state should change the process for selecting judges that produces these confounding judicial ballots.

The challengers base their campaigns on the belief that the state's current system has evolved, and has been "engineered," in a way that protects incumbents and undermines voters' right to elect judges, producing a judiciary in which nearly all judges initially are appointed, in which few are challenged when they stand for reelection and in which even fewer are ever defeated. Carrying endorsement this year from the state Republican Party, these challengers long for more vigorous election contests for judges.

Many judges, lawyers and public-policy analysts, meanwhile, seek a different kind of change. They want a new system that will preserve voters' role but protect Minnesota's courts from the kind of big-money, partisan judicial campaigns seen in some other states -- politicized electioneering that can erode confidence in the impartiality of courts.

This editorial board has long shared those concerns. We welcome reformers' ongoing effort to eventually put before voters a constitutional amendment that would provide for the appointment of all judges, followed by periodic "retention" elections in which voters would decide whether to keep or remove a judge, with a successor appointed in cases of removal. Such an amendment would permit a thorough debate and lead to a more open and understandable process.

Meantime, however, voters should keep four sound appellate judges on the job:

Ironically, Page originally reached the bench by winning election to a rare open seat. While that makes him evidence that elections can produce exceptional jurists, Page himself has become an articulate critic of efforts to inject politics into judicial races.

Tim Tingelstad, 50, of Bemidji, a magistrate in the Ninth Judicial District, is challenging Page in his third run for the Supreme Court. He says his central purpose is to assert and preserve voters' right to elect judges. But Tingelstad also places great emphasis on the importance of religion in guiding a judge's work. That focus raises questions about impartiality, reinforcing the conclusion that Page should be kept on the bench.

Helen Meyer, 56, of Edina, was appointed to the high court by Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura in 2002, following 20 years as a private practice attorney and bar association leader. Careful and collegial, she emphasizes respect for precedent and says courts must not "get too far ahead" of the community they serve. Yet she has not hesitated to dissent when convinced a majority decision is mistaken. She warns that full-blown partisan elections for judges could undermine Minnesota's reputation for competent and impartial courts.

Greg Wersal, 55, of Belle Plaine, is a lawyer in private practice and is the informal leader among critics of the state's judicial election process. After unsuccessful runs for the Supreme Court in 1998 and 2000, Wersal was among plaintiffs who sued to overturn various court rules that then restricted judges and their challengers. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on candidates' speech; other rules barring party endorsements and fundraising have fallen since. Those rulings have largely inspired the drive for a formal change to the state's judicial selection system.

Wersal's commitment to his cause can't be doubted, and his critique of the current system can't be dismissed in light of the federal court decisions. But none of this makes Wersal better qualified for the court than the able incumbent in this race.

Challenger Dan Griffith, 48, a lawyer in private practice in International Falls, is another challenger who makes the sanctity of elections his central issue. But his qualifications for the bench don't match Stauber's.

Randolph Peterson, 57, of Wyoming, is a veteran on the appeals court. Appointed by DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich in 1990, he was a three-term state senator before going on the bench -- rare lawmaking experience that is valuable in judges' task to interpret legislative intent. Peterson is a meticulous judge, emphasizing the importance of preserving "stability" and "predictability" in the law.