The SOS Project, Mark Ritchie and the Coleman-Franken Race
May 14, 2009
As I posted yesterday, I’ll be following the Secretary of State (SOS) Project – another organization bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund kingpin George Soros aimed at pushing American politics sharply to the left. Like Justice at Stake – which works to give special interest groups like the trial bar more influence over who sits on state courts – the SOS Project poses as a non-partisan, “good government” reform effort. The truth is, the SOS Project is committed to electing sharply partisan Democrats who they believe can help shift votes in close elections to their favored candidates.
Consider Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, elected in 2006 with the financial backing of the SOS Project. One of the critical roles for Secretaries of State is to oversee elections and serve as an impartial arbiter while overseeing recounts in disputed contests. Yet shortly it became obvious that the Coleman-Franken Senate race was headed for a long, drawn-out recount, Ritchie went on national TV and accused Coleman’s campaign of trying “to win at any price.”
The Coleman campaign said Ritchie’s partisan comments showed he couldn’t govern the recount process fairly, but don’t listen to them. Here’s what Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten had to say (emphasis added):
“Let’s assume the 32 disputed ballots in Minneapolis were legitimate. Let’s assume the newly discovered 100 votes in Pine County — all for Al Franken — were just overlooked by a sleepy official, and the 100 votes found in Mountain Iron — again, all for Franken — were valid.
“Let’s suppose the trickle of votes moving inexorably in Franken’s direction is just a function of a normal process, as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office assures us.
“One fact remains troubling. The referee in Minnesota’s hotly contested Senate race must act in a nonpartisan fashion, yet Ritchie came to office through a nationwide partisan strategy. He was elected in 2006 as part of a national campaign to ensure that Democrats could wield influence in precisely the sort of hair’s breadth race we now have here.
“Ritchie gained office with the help of the Secretary of State Project (SOS), an independent 527 group co-founded by former MoveOn.org leader James Rucker. SOS is based in San Francisco, and is funded in part by ultra-liberal kingmakers such as George Soros.
“Secretary of state positions are a “new front” in the “battle for political control,” the paper explained, because they are “the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”
Ritchie has also come under attack for his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the same group that figured in voting issues in Ohio in the Presidential election last year. Trent England in the pages of the Wall Street Journal described the group as “a group under investigation in several states for suspected voter registration chicanery.”
If any of this happened under a Republican watch, you can bet the Democrats would be crying “dirty tricks.” When it helps Democrats can get to the magic number of 60 seats in the U.S. Senate, no one seems to mind. Tilting close elections like Minnesota’s in their favor is exactly why the SOS Project is spending millions to assure that left-leaning Democrats control these offices.
Among The Elites In Minnesota
March 11, 2009
A campaign is on to strip Minnesota voters of their right to choose state judges – a right enshrined in Article VI, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. Our friends over at Gavel Grab/Justice at Stake – the group funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros that is lobbying to abolish democratic judicial elections across America – have a thumb-sucker on the attempt to shift the power to select judges away from the people toward a tiny tribunal of lawyers.
Well-funded groups (like Justice at Stake) are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would “require all judges to submit to periodic professional performance reviews.” Actually, Minnesota judges are already “required” to submit to performance reviews: In a democracy, we call these “reviews” elections.
But a “performance review” isn’t really what Justice at Stake has in mind. The Quie Commission – named after former Minnesota Governor Al Quie – wants to set up two more commissions: A Judicial Performance Review Commission and an Appellate Court Merit Selection Commission.
The Judicial Performance Review Commission will consist of 30 people that “must be respected individuals of outstanding character and integrity and reflect the diversity of the state.” This august panel will have a majority of non-lawyers, but does anyone doubt that when these 30 “respected individuals” convene to pass judgment on a judge’s performance that William the Attorney won’t have more influence than Bill the Mechanic?
Actually, Bill the Mechanic probably won’t be allowed into the smoke-filled room because neither the Governor nor the Chief Justice, who will make all the appointments, will likely consider him, ummmm, “respected” enough to evaluate judges. Minnesota Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, after all, is on record as saying you “need to have a certain level of experience and insight and sophistication to be able to say that a judge got that [ruling] right.” Sorry, Bill.
But don’t judges – like any other public official – serve Bill the Mechanic as much as William the Attorney? Read more
“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.
No Merit for Minnesota
October 29, 2008
A Minneapolis Star Tribune article has a good update on the upcoming judicial races in Minnesota.
Judicial candidates have found many innovative ways to inform voters about the judicial philosophies – including YouTube videos – without compromising their independence. The Star Tribune reports that judicial campaigns this year are mostly “low-cost, low-key and low-profile affairs.” Kind of makes you wonder why some top Minnesota lawyers and outside special interest groups are lobbying to take judicial selection away from voters and hand it over to a tiny committee dominated by lawyers. Do they really think people don’t have the “insight and sophistication” to pick judges? Or do they just want to give legal special interests more power in deciding who sits on the bench?
What Are Election Opponents Afraid Of In Minnesota?
October 21, 2008
Minnesota Lawyer posts videos from two candidates for Minnesota Supreme Court: incumbent Lorie Skjerven Gildea and challenger Deborah Hedlund. Both show serious, thoughtful candidates who are fully capable of discussing their qualifications in a dignified manner that is fully accessible to every fair-minded Minnesota voter. Is this the type of nasty judicial campaigning that would justify denying Minnesota citizens the right to vote for judges, as “merit” selection proponents favor? According to Minnesota Lawyer, both candidates have even set up Facebook pages to help voters understand their background and judicial philosophies. The horror!
Democracy In Action
September 30, 2008
For all those “merit” selection supporters who think voters can’t be trusted to evaluate judicial candidates, take a look at this video of an incumbent judge running for re-election in Minnesota. I have no opinion on Judge Philip Bush’s candidacy, but he shows that judicial candidates are perfectly capable of having a reasoned, open dialogue with voters about their judicial philosophies without impairing their ability to be impartial on the bench.
The Politics of “Non-Political” Judicial Selection
September 22, 2008
Proponents of abolishing democratic election of judges always claim that “merit” selection gets politics out of the process. But Minnesota judicial candidate Dan Griffith gives us a peek into the backroom dealing that goes on when judges are chosen in secret by “merit” panels controlled by lawyers.
There’s a strong correlation between those who actually end up on the appellate level courts and also on the district court level…that they first served on the selection committee, which means they were first politically appointed by the governor on this committee.From there, they get appointed to the appellate court or the Supreme Court. The majority of people on the appellate court first were on the selection committee. Basically, it means they’re selecting from themselves.
Democratic elections, of course, don’t remove politics from judicial selection any more than “merit” schemes. But at least the politics occurs out in the open for everyone to see, rather than being hidden behind closed doors. Most importantly, as Mr. Griffith reminds us:
In a democracy, what sets us apart is that we are able to choose our own leaders, not have them chosen for us. That is not what many other countries enjoy.
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.”
Chipping Away At Democracy In Minnesota
June 26, 2008
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.
Refreshing Honesty From A “Merit Selection” Supporter
June 18, 2008
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson came out for scrapping democratic elections for judges and endorsed a “merit selection” system for the state. No surprise there – a top lawyer thinks lawyers should control who sits on the bench.
But unlike most proponents of secret selection, Chief Justice Magnuson deserves credit for his refreshing honesty about his reasons: voters, he believes, simply don’t have a sufficient level of “insight and sophistication” to evaluate judicial decisions and he doesn’t think “anybody” should just be able to “walk into a voting booth with no idea what they’re doing.”
As Chief Justice Magnuson no doubt knows, literacy tests for voting were outlawed with the Voting Right Act of 1965, legislation later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But maybe Minnesota could pass a law forbidding any citizen without a college degree from voting in a judicial election. Or maybe they could restrict voting to only those with a J.D. Come to think of it, most people don’t know much about their school board elections either. So maybe only teachers should be allowed to vote in these races. And my guess is about half of all Americans voting in any given presidential election think the other half just “walk into a voting booth with no idea what they’re doing.” Hmmmm…
Here are the direct quotes, but you can read the whole interview in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
“I would rather have the help of knowledgeable people evaluating the judges, and then, in a nonpartisan way, saying here’s where they stand, than to have anybody walk into the voting booth with no idea what they’re doing.”
“It’s nonsensical to think you can boil down a decision to a sound bite that is meaningful to the public. You need to have a certain level of experience and insight and sophistication to be able to say that judge got that right.