Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Feb. 12

Regarding your Feb. 10 editorial "To repair MnDOT, Molnau era must end": Refusing to confirm Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau could be seen as a partisan political move, involving a state government position that most would agree should not be used as a political football by either party.

Indeed, the commissioner should be the most qualified person available to the governor at the time of appointment, based on the candidates' experience and skills.

But given that Molnau has very little background in transportation, and doesn't seem to be a great manager, the Legislature would send the right message by denying her appointment, since she appears to have been given the job based on her views on taxes and not her competence in running the department.

SEAN HEALEY, MINNEAPOLIS

A post-Pawlenty future The Star Tribune does not have to worry about Lt. Gov. Molnau's past. She has a better than 50 percent chance of being the next governor.

JERRY E. JOHNSON, BLOOMINGTON

There are good reasons to be cautious about supporting changing Minnesota's Constitution regarding the selection of judges but attacking Gov. Al Quie isn't one of them. The Feb. 4 column describing him as an elitist wasn't fair. Quie is a decent, honorable man who cares deeply about the system of justice. However, there are flaws in the recommendations he and the Star Tribune are making.

The proposed change to our Constitution won't fix the problems that the Star Tribune fears. Raising money for judicial campaigns is surely problematic. But retention elections don't solve that challenge. It is just as easy to be embroiled in an expensive retention election with vast sums of special interest money as it is with our present system. Arguably it might be easier for special interest groups to wield influence and money in a retention election.

Finally an incumbent judge is going to have the same dilemma about what to say or to commit on issues that might come before him or her in a retention election as we do today. The best antidote to the fear that well-intentioned people such as Quie have about the future of the judiciary in Minnesota is not to change the Constitution but to focus on the reason for high public confidence in our courts. Performance is what drives public satisfaction. Minnesota courts are very good. If they become great we need not fear the future.

KEVIN BURKE, MINNEAPOLIS;

HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE

It's very interesting that Congress got the message that we do not want intrusive telemarketer calls and are planning to make the "Do Not Call" list permanent. Don't these elected officials have a clue that we do not want their political calls to interrupt our dinner either?

I read with unbridled anger the Feb. 10 comments of Sen. Amy Klobuchar regarding her status as a "superdelegate" to the Democratic National Convention. She stated that she will "not go through the summer, I can tell you that, without endorsing a candidate." Aren't we fortunate to have Klobuchar decide for us little people who should represent us, and to hell with the idea of "one person, one vote"?

I have been an ardent supporter of the Democratic Party since 1984. As anyone who has paid attention to politics in the last two plus decades knows, these haven't been halcyon days for the party, but I still believed in the fundamental principles of the party. Unfortunately, one thing I missed was the creation of the "superdelegates." The idea that party "insiders" and elected officials were needed to prevent party activists from taking control of the party smacks of elitism and paternal politics.

The idea that any elected or unelected person's vote is worth more than anyone else's is totally anathema to democratic principles. We have a very good process of selecting delegates in direct proportion to the caucus or primary votes each candidate receives. Superdelegates subvert this process.

The master stroke for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be to renounce the votes of the super delegates. However, if both continue to seek these delegates' votes and one candidate were to receive the majority of state delegates yet lose via "superdelegates," this will be the end of the Democratic Party's chance this fall. I'm sure that I'm not the only Democrat who will adamantly disavow a nominee who is selected by such an undemocratic process.

PAUL N. SCOTT, MINNEAPOLIS

In addition to these delegates, Minnesota and other states have "superdelegates," members of Congress and other party leaders who can vote for whomever they see fit. In other words, they can disregard the candidate their constituents support. So, for example, a superdelegate from Minnesota, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, can still vote for Clinton, despite the fact that Minnesota Democrats overwhelmingly support Obama.

At the moment, Klobuchar has remained neutral, promising that she will eventually vote for one of the Democratic candidates. She is free to support whomever she so chooses, but I'd still like to know why she's entertaining the possibility of supporting the candidate her constituents have soundly rejected.