Common Sense in Minnesota
September 15, 2008
“Expensive judicial campaigns take place when judges ignore the original intent of our Constitution. We should be grateful that people are willing to invest in the cause of holding our courts accountable.”
Wow!
That’s from an outstanding op-ed by Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Timothy L. Tingelstad, which appeared in the Albert Lea Tribune. Judge Tingelstad spells out in clear, common sense language why democratic judicial elections are a more democratic way to select judges than “merit” selection with meaningless retention elections. In these days of rampant judicial arrogance – when even good judges complain about “demeaning” themselves by going before the voters – it’s refreshing to hear a judicial candidate with a decent respect for the judgment of the people. Read the full article, but here are some more highlights.
- Meaningful, contested, nonpartisan judicial elections keep our courts accountable to the people.
- Under [“merit” selection/retention election], the people never elect a judge. An “election” is the act of selecting one or more from others. A “retention election” does not include a second candidate, so it is not an “election.”
- [“Merit” selection/retention elections] would not remove politics from the judicial selection process, it would simply hide the politics from the people. The politics would be condensed into small, unelected and unaccountable committees.
- [“Merit” selection/retention elections] would not eliminate special interest groups from impacting the judicial selection process. Instead [it] would increase the influence of two very powerful special interest groups: 1. the selection committee, and 2. the retention committee.
- History raises concerns about the judicial appointment process. Four of our seven Minnesota Supreme Court Justices were appointed after serving on the Judicial Selection Commission. Do committees serve the people or themselves?
I have no idea whether Judge Tingelstad would make a good Supreme Court Justice. But I do know he has a higher regard for the people he would be serving than Minnesota’s current Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, who recently grumbled that voters don’t have the “insight and sophistication” to evaluate judges and is troubled that ordinary people can just “walk into a voting booth with no idea what they’re doing.”