Litigation

Politicking Permitted in MN Judicial Elections

By Peter Hardin

In Minnesota, only a handful of judicial candidates are aggressively taking advantage of new freedoms to solicit campaign donations, seek endorsements and state their views.

The more open politicking was made possible when a federal appeals court in July struck down Minnesota rules that barred judicial candidates from endorsing candidates for elective office and from directly soliciting campaign money given by individuals and small groups (see Gavel Grab).

Lawyer Greg Wersal (photo at left), campaigning for the state Supreme Court, is one of those who has spent a good deal of time asking for donations, according to an Associated Press article. He has pushed hard over many years to eliminate limits on judicial campaigns, and he won when the appeals court issued its summer ruling.

“The sky isn’t falling,” he told the AP. While concerns have been raised by some about big-money spending in judicial elections coming to Minnesota, that hasn’t happened yet, the article notes, using a recent report co-authored by the Justice at Stake Campaign to point out a contrast with soaring spending in other states.

The report is entitled, “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change.”

In the most recent session of the state legislature, a proposed constitutional amendment to switch to retention (up-or-down) elections was blocked, but it is expected to come up again in the next session. To learn about appointment-and-retention systems for choosing judges, check out the JAS issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 05, 2010 (boomark / email).