Judicial Independence
Recent News
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's May 21 Op Ed in the New York Times:
"A better system is one that strikes a balance between lifetime appointment and partisan election by providing for the open, public nomination and appointment of judges, followed in due course by a standardized judicial performance evaluation and, finally, a yes/no vote in which citizens either approve the judge or vote him out. This kind of merit selection system — now used in some form in two-thirds of states — protects the impartiality of the judiciary without sacrificing accountability."
"Some states where judges are still elected are considering constitutional changes to a merit selection system. The Minnesota Legislature has considered asking voters to weigh in on such a change, and may do so again next year. And in Nevada (a state ranked eighth in campaign spending on judgeships), two legislators — the Senate minority leader, William Raggio, a Republican, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, a Democrat — pushed through a ballot question that citizens will vote on this November on whether to institute a merit selection system for judges."
Read the entire opinion
Leo Brisois: Let Minnesota voters decide how to best select judges - Mar. 27, 2010
The Citizens League summarizes the need for a change in judicial selection - Feb. 2, 2010
Supreme Court to take up anti-corruption law - Nov. 29, 2009
Wisconsin recusal decision could impact courts nationwide - Oct. 29, 2009
Role of the Judiciary: Independent and Impartial
The framers of the constitution set up the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as equals to provide a system of checks and balances. The judicial system exists to enforce the law and to evaluate the constitutionality of those laws.
The judicial system was designed to be independent from the other two branches of government. Judges and justices are expected to decide cases in an impartial manner. These two concepts – independence and impartiality – are cornerstones to our democracy.
- Independence means that courts are able to decide on cases free from interference from the other branches of government, political pressure or from the influence of special-interests, the public or financial pressures.
- Judicial impartiality is the expectation that judges will rule dispassionately, applying the rule of law rather than their personal beliefs, and treat all who come before them equally and without favoritism.
Visit American Judicature Society: What is Judicial Independence? for more information.
How Minnesota's Judges Are Selected
Minnesota’s constitution and state statutes allow for both the appointment and election of judges.
The state constitution provides that judges “shall be elected from the area in which they serve.” In the event of a mid-term vacancy, the Governor will fill the position with the advice of the Commission on Judicial Selection.
District Court judges serve six-year terms. Terms for Supreme Court justices and judges on the Court of Appeals are four years.
Judges must be currently licensed to practice law in Minnesota. State statute provides that judicial elections are nonpartisan; no party designation is listed on the ballot. Incumbency is noted on the ballot.
Read more about Minnesot'a Courts
Qualities of a Good Judge
Judges must be able to decide cases competently, fairly and in a way that inspires public confidence. Judges must be able to set aside their own preconceived notions in order to decide cases according to the law as it exists and according to the facts of the individual cases, not their own personal opinions.
The Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection measures the following traits in recommending a judge for the bench:
- Integrity
- Maturity
- Health (if job related)
- Judicial temperament
- Legal knowledge
- Ability
- Experience
- Community service
The Current State of Judicial Elections in Minnesota
The White decision
Prior to 2002, candidates for judge in Minnesota were judicial canons in the Code of Judicial Conduct that governed judicial elections. The canons prohibited judicial candidates from stating their views on “disputed legal and political issues.”
The White case was brought in federal court by Greg Wersal and the Minnesota Republican Party, contending that the judicial canons violated their first amendment rights to free speech.
The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, agreed and struck down the canon that prohibited judicial candidates from stating their views on such issues. In 2005, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down additional canons, based on the Supreme Court decision.
As a result of these decisions, candidates for judge in Minnesota can now
- Announce party affiliation in running for judge (although it will not be on the ballot)
- Seek, accept and use political party endorsements in running for judge
- Address political gatherings, such as conventions
- Directly ask for campaign contributions in writing or in person before groups of 20 or more
- Personally asking an individual for a contribution
- Making pledges or promised of certain conduct other than impartial performance of duties
- Committing themselves with respect to a certain case, controversy or issue
- Doing anything that reasonably questions their impartiality as a judge
Politicized Campaigns and Money
The White decision opens the door for increased political attacks and campaign expenditures in judicial elections. We cannot be confident that our good track record of impartiality in our judicial candidates will continue.
Nationally, a record amount of money is being spent on judicial elections, particularly in state Supreme Court races.
- Candidates in Alabama raised over $13 million in their Supreme Court elections
- Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004 set a fundraising record of over $9 million
- Supreme Court expenditures in Georgia have increased from $39,000 for one race in 2000 to $4 million for a seat in 2006.
- Close to home in Wisconsin, an open seat for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2007 generated $2.7 million in spending from the candidates and more than $3 million spent by outside groups.
Reforms Under Consideration
SF70/HF224 were introduced in the Minnesota Legislature in the 2009 session. The proposed legislation would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to replace our current system of selecting judges with a retention election system.
In a retention election voters would be asked to vote to retain a judge or not – there would be no opponent on the ballot. A judicial evaluation commission would provide evaluate the judge’s work and provide that information to the voting public. If the majority of voters vote not to retain the judge, the governor would then appoint someone else to the position using the methods currently in place for mid-term appointments. If they judge is retained, they would serve an eight-year term.
The legislation passed through two committees in the Senate. It is awaiting action in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2010.
Research Judicial Independence
LWVMN Judicial Selection Study Update
Minnesotans for Impartial Courts
Midwest Democracy Network: New Politics of Judicial Elections
Justice at Stake Campaign
Brennan Center: Fair Courts