Judicial Selection

Issue

How should Minnesota select its judges? Should the contested election process be continued?

Policy

Minnesota should amend its Constitution to implement a retention election system as recommended by the Quie Commission. This system would have two components:

• An independent commission comprised of a balanced group of experts would evaluate judges and issue a public report. This report would give voters information not available today about the competency of judges.

• A retention election allows voters to determine whether a judge retains his/her job. A judge does not face a challenger in this election. If voters reject a judge, the Governor would appoint a successor.

Business Impact

Businesses depend on states to provide a competent and fair judiciary. In several states, the integrity of the judicial system has been questioned, because expensive political campaigns have been waged over state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals seats. If this type of campaign occurs in Minnesota, businesses will be asked to contribute political action committee (PAC) funds to judicial campaigns. This will take resources away from legislative, gubernatorial and attorney general races, among others.

A retention election will likely result in fewer big-dollar campaigns in judicial elections. Under a retention system, interest groups that want to unseat a judge will not know who the alternative will be. That should limit, but probably not eliminate, expensive campaigns to unseat judges.

Public perception of judicial impartiality and competence will suffer if races become increasingly political. There is some evidence, though not conclusive, that public confidence is already shaken. Between 2008 and 2010, Minnesota’s ranking on judicial impartiality and competence fell, according to a survey on state liability systems conducted by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform , . The survey is conducted through interviews with in-house general counsel, senior litigators and senior executives knowledgeable about litigation.

While Minnesota’s overall state ranking for its liability system (i.e., handling of tort cases, damages, class-action suits) was 11 on both the 2008 and 2010 surveys, the two measures related specifically to judges fell significantly from their 2008 rankings. Minnesota’s ranking on judges’ impartiality fell from 5 to 13. The state’s ranking on judges’ competence fell from 2 to 10.