“Superlawyers” To The Rescue: The Fight Over How To Choose Judges In Minnesota
October 30, 2008
The Minnesota Lawyer Blog gives us a ring-side seat to an exciting fight, carried out in the op-ed pages of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, between Charles Lundberg, a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and Paul Woods, a product manager at a publishing firm, over how best to vote for judges.
Sure sounds like a mismatch…but I smell an upset.
Mr. Lundberg instructs voters, who he says basically know “very little” about which appellate candidate to chose from, to “consult” someone who is “well-qualified to help you evaluate the judges.” Who does he have in mind? Well, another appellate lawyer – like himself for instance.
If you’re so lowly that you’re not lucky enough to travel in the company of appellate lawyers, have no fear. In that case, Mr. Lundberg instructs, “vote for the incumbent.” Why? Because “more than 100 of the top appellate lawyers in Minnesota have evaluated the candidates [for an appellate slot] and publicized their conclusions. These lawyers have both the unique qualifications and the professional responsibility to candidly assess sitting appellate judges.” (Unlike you, of course.) This august group of legal grandees “include members of the state bar appellate practice section, the amicus curiae committees of both the plaintiffs and defense bar, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and attorneys designated appellate law ‘SuperLawyers’ by Minnesota Law & Politics.” They all support the incumbent because “generally speaking, appellate judges learn and improve and get better at their job over time.” If an appellate judge is good enough for them, he/she should be good enough for you.
But these blows did not faze Mr. Woods, who called the arguments “self-serving and insulting to the intelligence of Minnesota voters.” He ridicules Mr. Lundberg’s “weighty legal rationale” that incumbent appellate judges “generally speaking” get better at their jobs over time. Mr. Woods writes:
“Doh! Doesn’t everyone, generally speaking? If this is the case, why hold any official up for election at all? Just think of how much better our governor, congressional members and president would be if we just let them keep their jobs and bring to bear all the experience they’ve gained in office?
“So the real practice being advocated by Lundberg is to have the governor choose our judges, who then become incumbents, who we are then told to vote for by the likes of Lundberg and the clan of appellate lawyers, because they are…incumbents.”
Mr. Woods feels the citizens of Minnesota are perfectly capable of doing their homework and figuring out who to vote for – even without the help of Mr. Lundberg and his fellow “SuperLawyers.”
“We elect governors, don’t we? Why not judges too?”
The winner by knockout: Paul Woods.