Judicial Independence

 

League of Women Voters Minnesota serves on the board of Coalition for Impartial Justice.  For more information on their work, visit their website. 

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.

Many believe that both the independence and impartiality of our judicial system is under threat from outside influences. Judicial elections are becoming increasingly partisan and expensive. Minnesota has been spared some of the high campaign expenditures and negative attacks that have been problematic in other states. Many suspect, however, that it is just a matter of time before this trend comes to our state. 

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

Candidates are still prohibited from

• 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.
   

Recent News

AP Interview: Campaign watchdog focuses on judges – San Francisco Chronicle. August 2, 2011
Ethics, Politics and The Supreme Court – Jewish Times of South Jersey. July 29, 2011
Take Justice off the ballot-Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner

Research Judicial Independence

Minnesotans for Impartial Courts
Midwest Democracy Network: New Politics of Judicial Elections
Justice at Stake Campaign
Brennan Center: Fair Courts