The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Editorials

February 6, 2008

Our View: Protect judicial impartiality

A prestigious commission recommends a constitutional change in the way Minnesota’s judges are seated and retained.

The proposal from Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, which includes former Gov. Al Quie and state Supreme Court Justice Alan Page, intelligently addresses growing concerns about the impartiality and accountability of judges and deserves strong consideration from the Legislature. Employing a thoughtful mixture of nomination by commission, gubernatorial appointment and evaluation via committee and, ultimately, the voting public, the plan hits all the main marks.

The recommendation asks that candidates be nominated by a merit selection commission, appointed from a list by the governor, reviewed by a performance evaluation commission made up of a majority of non-lawyers, and voted up or down — using the evaluation committee’s assessment as a guide — by the public through retention elections.

Critics of the plan argue the existing system (most judges are selected, then run for election after two years of appointment) works well. Indeed it is true that generally the Minnesota judicial system has been free of scandal, unseemly campaigning and discernible bias.

But those critics are too dismissive of the potential for threats to fairness. A slippery slope has existed since 2005 when a U.S. Supreme Court ruling rejected Minnesota’s rules barring judicial candidates from revealing their political or legal views, thus inserting competition and injecting political party endorsements. Though the court system has largely maintained its reputation for fairness and honesty since, the new era has increased at least the appearance of a potential for partisanship.

The commission’s majority report suggests the perception begs for a change. There is solid ground here, in that our democratic system relies on every appearance of integrity and the impartial interpretation of laws. The system is undermined when the wishes of campaign contributors, special interest groups and political parties are even perceived to emerge as considerations.

Most, but not all, commission members agreed the public should continue to be involved in the process, so retention elections were inserted into the recommendation. Under the plan, elections would include a ballot question seeking guidance on whether specific judges should remain. To guide the process, performance review input would be included according to objective criteria.

It is correct to include private citizens in this way. It not only enhances the amendment’s viability in respect to the Legislature, but it ensures judges will continue to adhere to some degree — minus the temptation toward electioneering — of accountability to the general public.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials