LWVMN 1997-99 State Study - Election of Judges

The Study Committee's final report, Choosing Minnesota's Judges: An Examination of the Present System and Alternative Proposals is available on-line. The printed report may also be ordered.

Introduction and Scope

The state study for 1997-1999, "A Study of the Election of Judges," was approved at convention. There was a lively discussion on alternative study ideas but the delegates voted for the board's recommendation which was based on requests submitted by local Leagues during the Lively Issues process.

Local Leagues suggested the study because voters reported feeling unprepared to decide among the district judge candidates in the 1996 election. Voters felt they had insufficient background on the candidates and issues relevant to the races. Many chose not to vote.

The study will provide nonpartisan information to Minnesota citizens concerning the present system of electing judges in Minnesota and examine proposals for appointing judges. A committee will be appointed to develop the project. It will examine the current process and explore alternatives. Information will be shared with the public through public meetings, publications and or videos.

The study will examine:

The present system of electing judges in Minnesota

What are the advantages/disadvantages to the present system of electing judges?

Explore means for making information about judges available to electorate.

Could the election of judges be improved by:
- different procedures for nominating judges?
- better media coverage of nomination process and election campaigns?
- more media attention to judicial matters?
- different procedures for censure and/or removal of judges?
Alternative proposals for appointing judges.

If judges were to be appointed, what safeguards would be appropriate to prevent undue influence by special interests and political cronyism on the appointment process?

What are the major factors for an appointing body or person to consider in making appointments to judgeships?

Should judges be appointed by the governor, by a special commission, by the House of Representatives, Senate, or both, or by some combination of the above?

Basic Information

The Minnesota Judiciary

There are three main levels of courts in Minnesota.

The District Court

Most cases start in the district court where trials are held.

The district courts are organized into ten judicial districts.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals

Final judgments of the district courts may be appealed to the court of appeals.

Most appeals are heard by a panel of three court of appeals judges.

The court of appeals is primarily intended to correct errors by the district courts.

The Minnesota Supreme Court

Nine justices sit on the Minnesota Supreme Court - a Chief Justice and 6-8 Justices. Seven justices are currently seated.

The Supreme Court may take appeals from the Court of Appeals.

It also hears certain other kinds of cases (for example, first-degree murder appeals and attorney discipline cases).

The Supreme Court is the court of last resort and is responsible for change in the case law when needed.

Judges from all three of these courts appear on Minnesota ballots. There are also several more specialized courts that do not appear on the ballot. These include the tax court and the workers compensation court.

In addition, there are federal courts (the federal district court and the federal court of appeals). Vacancies on the federal courts are filled by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

Our System For Selecting Judges

Our state constitution and state statutes set up Minnesota's system for appointing and electing judges.

The state constitution provides that:

Judges must be "learned in the law".
Judges are elected for six-year terms.

State statutes impose additional requirements on the timing and conduct of elections.

The Governor fills vacancies in judicial offices by appointment.

State statutes also provide (since 1986) for a selection commission:

The judicial selection commission recommends 3-5 names for each vacancy.
The Governor may choose from these names.

Most judicial vacancies are filled by appointment, not by elections.

The Governor fills vacancies in judicial offices.
Judges are on the ballot every six years starting with the first election more than one year after the appointment.

The vast bulk of judges up for reelection are unopposed.

There are contested judicial elections under two circumstances--when someone runs against an incumbent judge who is up for reelection and when there is an open seat on the ballot and more than one person files for the vacancy.

There is an open seat that is filled by election rather than by appointment only if a judge who is up for reelection does not re-file for office.

Judicial Elections Different From Other Elections In Minnesota

Judicial elections are nonpartisan.

There are some constraints on what judicial candidates may say.

Judicial candidates may not make promises other than to faithfully and impartially perform the duties of judge, or announce their views on "disputed legal or political issues".
The purpose of these restrictions is to assure that disputes that come before judges are not prejudged.
Constraints on speech by judicial candidates are viewed narrowly because first amendment interests are at stake. First amendment interests are given priority where there are ambiguities.
The constraints on judicial speech have been widely misunderstood.
Judicial candidates may speak on many issues including their qualifications, their values, and their views on judicial administration.

The Judicial Selection Commission

Most of the members of the Judicial Selection Commission are appointed by the Governor. Additional members are appointed by the Supreme Court.

At-large members:

The Commission includes nine at-large members (seven appointed by the Governor, two appointed by the Supreme Court).

District members:

Four members are also appointed for each of the state's ten judicial districts (two appointed by the Governor, two appointed by the Supreme Court).

Terms of office:

The members appointed by the Governor serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The terms of the members appointed by the Supreme Court coincide with the Governor's term of office. (A new Commission is appointed when a new governor takes office.)

The Commission deals with vacancies in the district court and workers compensation court of appeals. It does not deal with vacancies in the state appellate courts (the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court).

Time Line

This time line is intended to provide local Leagues information to help in planning local meetings. It will be updated as the study progresses.

Summer of 1997

Organize Committee, meet monthly, plan Fall Focus Workshops

Sept.-Dec., 1997

Fall Workshops: 9/30-10/16 in Duluth, Brainerd, Roseville, Rochester, Edina

Meet every three weeks to plan and to hear invited resource speakers Basic information resources available to local league presidents

January-March, 1998

Meet every two weeks to hear resource speakers, define the issues, and begin writing.

March, 1998

Resource packets for unit meetings available to local leagues. This information will be similar to Fall Workshops. It will not be the study.

Spring, 1998

Public forum, if possible (April?)

Completion of writing.

June, 1998

Publication ready for design, layout, and printing

Summer, 1998

July - Discussion Guide, consensus questions drafted

August 12 - Consensus questions approved by LWVMN Board

The week of August 17 - Discussion Guide, consensus questions, publication, and other material mailed to local Leagues

September, 1998

Every member mailing of publication (if funding secured)

September-December, 1998

Local League meetings, public meetings in communities around the state

December 15, 1998 or January 15, 1999

Consensus deadline

January - February, 1999

Committee review of consensus responses, preparation of report, drafting of position

February or March, 1999

Action committee reviews draft position

LWVMN Board adopts position

Questions about this study may be sent to the Co-Chairs: Janet Gendler and Helen Palmer

LWVMN 1997-99 State StudyElection of Judges