To the editor,
People often ask us how to vote in judicial races. While it is wise to seek information on specific races, sometimes people do not have the time or opportunity. In such cases, it is almost always best to vote for judicial incumbents.
Most judges in Minnesota are appointed by the governor and then later run for reelection. In Minnesota, we make a great effort to keep politics and favoritism out of judicial appointments. All recent Minnesota governors have adhered to a nonpartisan process for appointing judges. This appointment process assures that only the most ethical and qualified candidates become judges. Before judges can be appointed in Minnesota, their qualifications and character must pass a rigorous review. The review includes input not just from fellow attorneys, but also from law enforcement, court clerks and other Minnesota citizens. Only the top three candidates are forwarded to the governor for consideration. Basically, by this point, the governor cannot help but choose a qualified judge.
Too often, those who try to become judges by being elected directly instead of being appointed are deliberately avoiding this screening process, presumably because they do not have the qualifications to survive the appointment process. A case in point are the present races for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. It’s our opinion that the incumbents are infinitely more qualified than the challengers. The challengers in these races to not even claim that they are more qualified than the incumbent judges.
They claim that they are running because they believe that judges should be elected instead of appointed. But all highly qualified, appointed judges must also run for office. Every Minnesotan has a fundamental right to have their cases decided by the most ethical and qualified judge. Requiring candidates to go though the non-partisan process is the best way of achieving that goal.
This brings us to yet another reason to vote for judicial incumbents — experience. Unlike practicing attorneys, judges cannot specialize in one area of the law. They must know all areas and must also know the rules regarding how to conduct all forms of trials and hearings. It makes little sense to replace an experienced judge by electing an inexperienced and less qualified challenger.
Judges have to decide critically important issues, like the custody of children and the appropriate punishment for law breakers. Only the most highly qualified, ethical and experienced person should be making such decisions. We continue to encourage you to seek learned advice on specific judicial races, but if you do not have time to do so, Minnesota’s rigorous non-partisan appointment process makes voting for judicial incumbents your next best choice.
Michael Jaksa
International Falls, MN
This letter was also signed by Jerrod Shermoen, Kim Literovich, and Molly French.
