Justice In Minnesota

	172 Days Remaining Before Election Day - Tuesday November 6, 2012

Home Events Resources Contact Us

<<< Judicial Elections Quiz >>>

Test your knowledge. Take the Judicial Elections 10 Point Quiz and learn why it's bad for Minnesota.

Retention elections are a way to elect a guy who appoints some guys who know some guys who want to be judges. We can then confirm the unelected judge every six years or ask the unelected guys to find a different guy to become an unelected replacement.
-Terry Stone

When Reagan said that the closest thing to eternal life on earth was a government bureaucracy, he obviously hadn't studied retention elections.
-Terry Stone

Justice In Minnesota is a non-partisan, citizen driven effort to restore our judicial branch of government. We believe that the judicial branch of government should remain independent of the other two branches of government (separation of powers), but never be independent of the people of Minnesota, or of the Constitution of the United States of America.

To this end, Justice In Minnesota seeks to:

Raise awareness of the history and importance of meaningful judicial elections while; educating Minnesotans about the manipulative threat to our constitutional right to vote for judges in the state of Minnesota.
Expose the Merit Selection and Retention Elections (MSRE) by revealing the corruption that this manipulative bill seeks to keep in place as well as the inherent dangers of the MSRE bill.
Elect constitutionally accountable judges who will interpret the law and remember the separation of powers in every court decision by applying only the law and the evidence to decisions from the bench.

A Bum Rap On Elected Judges - by Chris Bonneau

....There is no evidence that elections cause voters to view judicial institutions as less legitimate. In 2008 and 2009, Washington University professor James Gibson, in a series of survey experiments, found that while particular campaign contributions can lead to legitimacy concerns, there are no such consequences when candidates engage in policy talk, negative ads or other ordinary incidents of a judicial race. Additionally, according to Gibson's data, the net effects of elections are still positive in terms of public perception of the judiciary. Read More...

With Justice For All - by Dan Griffith

Minnesota's First Chief Justice said, "If the people are incapable of selecting their Judges, they are also incapable of selecting the man who is to appoint the Judges."

Lafayette Emmett
MN Supreme Court Chief Justice

"What makes America unique among nations is the idea that the power of the people to govern themselves is a birthright guarenteed to all. This guiding principle set our nation on a unique course where leaders are chosen by free and fair elections and where the right to vote is treasured and protected."

2008 Minnesota Sesquicentennial
MN Secretary of State's Office Website

Appointments Made By A Politician Are Not Less Political
The StarTribune pointed out the politicization of judge appointments when it commented:

"Ventura was Minnesota's only recent governor not to appoint close associates to the state judiciary. Arne Carlson gave judgeships to his chief of staff, a campaign attorney, his sister-in-law and his attorney in the governor's office. Rudy Perpich, Carlson predecessor, named one of his former commissioners to the Supreme Court and his campaign manager to the district bench."

The StarTribune made that comment while announcing that our current governor just named his campaign attorney to the MN Court of Appeals. And later appointed the same campaign attorney to the MN Supreme Court.

The point is the power to appoint judges is a tempting tool to reward your political friends and even relatives. Our MN Constitution specifically states, "Judges shall be elected by the voters," not appointed by their politician friends. I think our founders were right.

My basic thesis is we can win back the executive and legislative branches and still LOSE because it is the judicial branch that ultimately determines what is law. As Judge Bork said, "The Constitution. . .is the highest prize and control of the selection of judges is the last step on the path to that prize. . . .Why? Because the Constitution is the trump card in American politics, and judges decide what the Constitution means."

Why I'm running for Appellate Court Judge
I want to be a judge because that is the branch of government at the forefront of either protecting, or far too often, taking our personal rights and freedoms. We need to take our country back. There is an elitist strain running through many judges where they see themselves as above the Constitution, above the people and therefore above public accountability through a public election.

Why we should care
Judges wield tremendous power over our civil rights and liberty. Judges, like all our officials, are only under the people when they are subject to meaningful elections. That is why we call our elected officials public servants. When judges successfully circumvent elections through timed retirements leading to political appointments, they also circumvent public accountability. In effect, they have placed themselves over the people as Nobles or Lords. When our officials are over the people, there is tyranny. When the people are over their officials, there is liberty.

If we continue to allow judges to circumvent our Constitution then they have set themselves above the people. Our Judges are supposed to be subject to us, through meaningful elections. We call our elected officials "public servants" and that is what they are provided they understand we loan them their power and we can take it back again through meaningful elections. Our Minnesota Constitution states, "Judges...shall be elected by the voters..." Art. VI, Sec 7.

On The Constitution
A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson said, "Government governs best that governs least." Our Constitution is a limited powers agreement between the government and the governed granting to our government only those powers necessary for a free and ordered society. That is why the 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I have served before good judges, but I have also served before bad judges and a bad judge can wreak havoc on our personal rights and freedoms. Even if we the people take back the Legislative and Executive branches, we can still lose because the judicial branch can and has overruled the other two. This is not a time for less accountability of these most powerful officeholders-Judges. It is a time for more.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole of our political institutions on the capacity of mankind to govern themselves according the to the 10 Commandments of God." In other words, our forefathers believed our personal freedoms depend upon exercising personal responsibility.

Current Minnesota Judicial History

2006: Minnesotans Win Victory for Fair Judicial Election in the U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court "White Decision" ----- CaseName: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White This case was originally brought by Gregory Wersal (above), and was later joined by the Republican Party of Minnesota. Majority Opinion: Justice Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion: Justice Ruth Bader Ginzberg Audio: by Oyez Media (the official media outlet of the U.S. Supreme Court)

March 2007: Quie Commission Report is presented less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court White Decision finally concluded in 2006. The Merit Selection and Retention Elections bill (MSRE), if adopted as a constitutional amendment, would nullify the "White Decision" above, effectively and permanently ending judicial elections in Minnesota.

July 2010: Judicial Rules Prohibiting Election Fundraising Struck Down
On July 29th, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that will have a major impact on judicial elections in the State of Minnesota. Attorney Greg Wersal challenged rules created by the Minnesota Supreme Court that prohibited judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds unless the candidate's audience consisted of at least 20 people. The Court agreed with Wersal that the rule violated the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech. Another rule that prohibited judicial candidates from endorsing other candidates for office was also struck down.

"This is a major victory toward the goal of holding judges accountable through free, open and competitive elections," said Wersal. "I now hope to raise the money necessary to tell the people of Minnesota that the judges, including my opponent in this race, want a constitutional amendment that would strip the public of their right to vote for judges. I will do everything I can to protect the right to vote."

Commentary

New Resident Shocked By Attempts to Isolate Judges From Public Review (by Candace Oathout)

I am a relatively new resident of Minnesota. When I recently learned about the proposal for a Constitutional Amendment that will remove the voice of the people from the process of selecting judges I was shocked. I have lived for many years in a state were election of non-partisan judges is normal practice and contested races were the norm. The opportunity to learn about a judicial candidate's background and experience was invaluable.

The Merit Selection and Retention Elections (MSRE) plan, if instituted, will change the Minnesota Constitution removing the citizen's right to vote for judges. It will remove the opportunity for the average voter to learn about the experience and ability of persons seeking to become judges. An educated populace can and must be able to participate in this process.

This plan will place the authority to appoint judges in the hands of the Governor and establish an unelected committee of 24 people to select and evaluate judges. This will serve to isolate judges from public review. It will severely limit the ability of the public to challenge or protest any judge's performance on the bench in any meaningful way. We need openness and transparency in the process of judicial selection.

The Power To Select Judges Belongs With The People (by Marjorie Holsten)

As an attorney who has practiced in Minnesota for over 20 years, I can tell you from firsthand experience that there are many awful judges in Minnesota, the vast majority of which have been appointed. The laws that have been passed regarding judicial elections are "incumbent protection" laws, aka judicial gag orders.

Greg Wersal went to the U.S. Supreme Court (the White case) and challenged these gag orders as being violative of the first amendment (which they clearly were), and recently won. Thus, we finally have a situation where judicial candidates CAN speak their mind, making elections meaningful.

The bar association, which yields a tremendous amount of influence over the judicial selection process, is fighting tooth and nail to avoid giving any of their power to the people, and has spent a huge amount of money lobbying the legislature to undertake the process of changing the Minnesota Constitution to eliminate contested judicial elections, replacing them with appointments and retention elections.

"Retention elections" are not elections at all - they are what communist countries had (only one candidate). If you could go to a debate between judicial candidates, you could determine which is most qualified, and could make an intelligent vote. That is the direction we are trying to move. Join us!

MSRE (Merit Selection and Retention Elections) Just Is A Bad Idea (by G Hoff, Chaska)

"In the pursuit of better government..."?

MSRE is a proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that does away with judicial elections. In its place a panel of lawyers would select judicial candidates and refer them to the governor, who would appoint one. Every eight years, the judge would face a ï¿½retentionï¿½ election. On the voting ballot, the judge would be alone as a yes or no vote (uncontested), just like the old Soviet system. In practice, it would be impossible to get rid of a bad judge. This amendment would take the power away from the people and give it the legal fraternity. It comes as no surprise the legal elite will sing the praises of MSRE with all the energy they can muster. For all the connected lawyers, it is a dream come true.

It is difficult to fathom how being appointed by one politician is any better than by a majority of voters, even if persuading all those voters requires a judge to raise money to get his message out. How does appointing judges assure a greater level of integrity? It is not like governors have never been jailed for corruption -- a half-dozen or so since Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew come readily to mind, from Louisiana to Arizona, Illinois, Alabama and Ohio.

"You see, we voters are simply not capable of recognizing real hanky panky and voting the bums out. And the press certainly is not capable of stumbling upon said hanky panky and reporting it. Therefore, the system is subject to that most horrific of conditions -- no, not corruption -- the perception, that judges just might be doling out favors to friends and financial backers." (THOMAS MITCHELL, Las Vegas Review-Journal )

Sure, voters occasionally get deceived. But what makes a system combining the powers of two branches of government any better? Indeed it is far worse by concentrating too much power in too few hands and by creating a good ol' boy network for grooming insiders who never dare to buck the powers that be.

MSRE is a medicine thatï¿½s far worse than the disease. To cure a cold, you would open up the judiciary and executive branches to the cancer of corruption on a grand scale. Good Men would not do such things you might say, but history tells us that greed and corruption are all around us.

Far better to deal with a few bad apples, than chance the whole barrel going rotten. Want to see what MSRE would be like in operation? See How to Become a Judge. Then you will understand how perverted an idea MSRE is!