I found Charles Lundberg's commentary ("How to vote for a judge when you don't know the first thing about it," Oct. 21) to be self-serving and insulting to the intelligence of Minnesota voters.
His argument can be paraphrased thusly: "Appellate lawyers know best. We'll let you know how to vote -- or just vote for the incumbent; they're good enough for us." Sound silly? Of course it does. It's absurd, and it serves only to perpetuate an incestuous and elitist club of insiders.
We are to accept that appellate lawyers, who appear before and argue cases in front of appellate judges, are best qualified to publicly review the performance of those same judges. Oh, yes, and the fox will take good care of the henhouse while we're all sleeping.
Lundberg's weighty legal rationale for all of this? "Generally speaking, appellate judges learn and improve and get better at the job over time." Doh! Doesn't everyone, generally speaking? If this is the case, why hold any official up for election at all? Just think of how much better our governor, congressional members and president would be if we just let them keep their jobs and bring to bear all the experience they've gained in office?
The second flash of brilliance: Lundberg forwards, as reason to vote for the incumbent, that challengers "are normally not as well-qualified or suited to the office ..." Not as well-qualified according to whom? Appellate lawyers? By definition, the qualifications require only a valid law license. Any standard others attempt to impose is arbitrary. Besides, who is to say a challenger wouldn't do an even better job than the incumbent?
Lundberg's reasoning doesn't pass the smell test, not even a whiff. Where did the incumbents originally come from? After all, they were not always incumbents.
There's the rub. The incumbents are not elected, but bypass this step and get appointed by the governor, then are allowed to skip their first election cycle, having only to stand again in the second election following their appointment, as ... ta-da! ... the incumbent.
This is the system as it is practiced in Minnesota, and that is an empirical fact. The reason most judges are appointed is by practice of taking regular advantage of an exception clause in our state Constitution that grants the governor the power to appoint a successor to an office that has been vacated prior to completion of the term. Judges can intentionally fail to complete their term, allowing a sympathetic governor to appoint their successor, thereby preventing the citizens from being involved in the selection process.