The St. Paul Pioneer Press wades into the judicial selection debate with an editorial endorsing the replacement of democratic elections for judges with so-called “merit selection” combined with uncontested retention elections.

Unlike Minnesota’s Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, the Pioneer Press at least had the tact not to question “the insight and sophistication” of Minnesota voters, but the result is the same: if the paper’s editors have their way, a small, unelected, unaccountable commission will control 1/3rd of the state government.

The editorial tries to convince readers that Minnesota basically uses a “merit” process already, since most judges leave office before their term expires, leaving the governor to fill vacant seats on the bench with the help of recommendations from a board. But there is a crucial difference. Under Minnesota’s current system, the governor is not bound by the choices of the commission, meaning that the ultimate decision is made by a public official who is directly accountable to the people. Voters are further empowered with the ability to choose another judge in a contested election.

Under the system supported by the Pioneer Press, however, the governor would be “required by law” to choose judicial nominees from a list dictated by an elite commission that is unelected, unaccountable, and completely insulated from the people. In other states that have experimented with this system, the commission is typically dominated by lawyers and meets in secret with no public oversight.

Citizens under the Pioneer Press’ plan would be reduced to casting “yes” or “no” votes heavily influenced by another unelected, unaccountable commission of legal elites who would provide “comprehensive performance evaluations of judges,” presumably because ordinary people don’t have the “insight or sophistication,” to use Chief Justice Magnuson’s words, to make this decision themselves. In other states, “retention” elections usually result in lopsided “victories” typical of the Politburo “elections” in the old Soviet Union – hardly the type of democratic elections envisioned by the authors of Minnesota’s Constitution.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court wield tremendous power. The rulings of judges on these courts can overturn laws passed by elected legislators and signed by elected governors. Small business owners, farmers, doctors, nurses, teachers, parents, police officers – all of these people and more are impacted by the decisions of Minnesota’s two highest courts. The Pioneer Press can give no good reason why the collective wisdom of millions of Minnesota citizens like these should be replaced by the whims of a handful of lawyers.