A proposal to replace contested judicial elections with a system allowing voters to reject judges has been dropped amid opposition from groups against abortion and other interests.
Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, who sponsored the measure in the House, blamed the bill's demise on "ideologically driven special interest groups" that "twisted arms." He said Monday that he pulled the bill after it became apparent that it would be defeated or changed dramatically.
Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis, who chairs the committee that was to consider the bill, confirmed that groups opposing abortion and the Tea Party movement fought it. But Mullery said most of the legislators on his committee opposed the bill for other reasons.
"A lot of people didn't want to take away the right of people to vote" in contested judicial elections, he said. "It definitely didn't have enough votes to pass."
The proposed retention election system involved an advisory panel that would rate judges before an election. If voters gave a thumbs down, the judges would step down and the governor would appoint a replacement.
The legislation called for giving voters in the November election the power to amend the state constitution to replace contested elections with retention.
Proponents say a retention system would lessen the likelihood of overly partisan contests where judges are encouraged to take positions on issues that could come before them.
Opponents say fears of political taint are overblown. A retention system, they say, would deprive voters of a choice between two candidates and encourage elitist selection.
