Minnesota judicial races off to a running start
by Michelle Lore Associate Editor
|
In fact, at the outset it looks to be a fairly typical election year here in the Gopher State. Ten incumbent judges — including three on appellate courts — face challengers. Meanwhile, two vacant seats in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties have garnered six and eight candidates respectively.
Both of the two Supreme Court justices up for election face multiple challengers. They and the two groups of attorneys vying for the open seats will have to square off against their opponents in a primary election on Sept. 10. Only two candidates for each seat can run in the general election.
The number of challenges this year is similar to past judicial elections. Two years ago, eight judicial seats were contested (one Court of Appeals spot and seven District Court seats). Four years ago, nine incumbent judges (four on the appellate courts and five on the District Court bench) faced challengers.
Minneapolis attorney George Soule, a former head of the Judicial Selection Commission and the campaign chair for Justice Paul Anderson, noted that the number of challenges is in line with prior elections. One slightly surprising twist this year, he added, is that one of the high court justices up for election, Lorie Skjerven Gildea, is being challenged by three lawyers with recognizable names, including a sitting Hennepin County District Court judge.
Soule told Minnesota Lawyer that he could not recall another instance of a sitting District Court judge in Minnesota running for an occupied appellate seat.
Many in the legal community remain concerned about the impact of the federal court decisions in Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. v. White, et al., in which the U.S. Supreme Court — and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on remand — knocked down campaign rules barring Minnesota judicial candidates from announcing their political views, seeking and using the endorsement of political parties, attending political gatherings and personally soliciting money by letter or from large groups.
All of the candidates seeking appellate court judgeships this year appear to agree that the infusion of partisan politics into judicial elections is inappropriate, although a few have expressed the sentiment that they are glad that candidates can now provide voters with at least an inkling of their values and belief systems.
Three’s a charm
The two attorneys seeking to unseat Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson are Alan Lawrence Nelson, a first-timer on the judicial election scene, and Tim Tingelstad, who has run on two other occasions.
This won’t the first primary for Anderson, who successfully staved off two challengers to his seat in 2002.
The justice said he’s taking his campaign seriously and will be talking with people all over the state about his experience, his record, what he brings to the high court and the need for an impartial judiciary. He won’t be discussing his views on political issues, nor will he seek political party endorsements.
Anderson said he’s unsure how much money his campaign will try to raise or need to be successful this fall, adding that he intentionally stays out of the fundraising part of the process. “I keep myself separate from that,” he said.
Tingelstad, a judicial magistrate from Bemidji, first sought a spot on the high court in 2004, when he unsuccessfully ran against Justice Alan Page. Two years ago, Tingelstad made a bid for a seat on the 9th Judicial District Court bench against a 26-year incumbent, Judge Terrence Holter. Holter was also challenged by his law clerk, John Melbye, who ultimately prevailed over Holter. Tingelstad finished a distant third in the primary, and was eliminated before the general election despite having received the endorsement of the state’s Republican Party. (Melbye went on to defeat the incumbent judge.)
Tingelstad told Minnesota Lawyer that once again his primary message to voters is that he’ll bring a “biblical worldview” to the bench. He’s opposed to partisan politics becoming involved in judicial elections, but believes a discussion of worldviews is important because every judge’s belief system informs his or her decisions. Added to his platform this year is his opposition to proposed changes to the current judicial-election system.
Tingelstad said his fundraising efforts will be limited, and he’ll rely primarily on those who share his beliefs to help him spread his message throughout the state.
Nelson did not return a call seeking comment, but his website identifies him as both a small-firm practitioner and a software engineer. He indicates he’s concerned about politics and negative ads creeping into judicial elections, so his campaign will focus solely on his qualifications. He’s also opposed to candidates accepting campaign contributions from those who may appear before them in court, and therefore will not be accepting campaign contributions.
Then there were four
Gildea, the only other Supreme Court justice up for election this year, will face off against three challengers — assistant state public defender Richard Gallo, Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund and Golden Valley attorney Jill Clark.
Gildea said she wasn’t surprised her seat is being challenged. In fact, she’s excited about getting out and talking with people about her qualifications for the job and her experience on the court. “It’s very important for people to understand that I love this job and I want to keep it,” she said.
The justice told Minnesota Lawyer that while she will continue to appear in parades across the state and do a lot of talking with the public, she will not be announcing her views on disputed political issues, nor will she seek political party endorsements. “My feeling about White is that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should,” she said.
Minneapolis attorney Sue Holden, who is chairing Gildea’s campaign, said the fact that the justice has three challengers is an example of how Minnesota’s judicial election landscape is changing.
Holden also noted that the campaign has been working hard at raising funds to support Gildea’s candidacy. “We anticipate we’ll need at least six figures,” she said. “Our goal is to raise between $100,000 and $200,000. But the circumstances of the campaign could dictate additional funds.”
Gallo said the impetus for running is his displeasure with many of the decisions coming out of the appellate courts, which he attributes to the infusion of politics into the judicial branch. He acknowledged the difficulties involved in running against an incumbent justice — including how it is viewed by the legal community — but said he feels good about the support he’s received so far.
“It was something I felt I needed to do, and I am really going to try [to win],” he said.
It’s a goal Gallo is seeking to reach without any fundraising. The longtime public defender said that he’d much rather see people donate money to the homeless or to food shelves than to a judicial campaign.
“We are going to get my name out there as best we can without money,” Gallo said. “I’m getting some flak over it but I feel strongly about that.”
Gallo is also adamant that it’s inappropriate for judicial candidates to discuss political issues or seek party endorsements, so he’ll spend his time discussing his experience and how he intends to act as a judge.
While this is Clark’s first bid for a spot on Supreme Court, she unsuccessfully sought to unseat Hennepin County District Court Judge Thomas Wexler in 2002.
Clark sees a run at a high court spot as a way to talk with the public about issues important to the justice system, including the current judicial appointment process and the potential change to the judicial election system. She said she chose to run against Gildea in part because Gildea has not yet been elected by the voters, and because it will be a good opportunity to examine why certain people are appointed to the bench by the governor.
Clark is undecided on whether she’ll seek political party endorsements, but as to the discussion of hot-button political issues, she feels there is a line judicial candidates shouldn’t cross.
“It’s important to not say how you’d rule on a particular case … but the public should know something about the candidates,” she told Minnesota Lawyer last week.
Hedlund has been on the Hennepin County bench for 28 years. She said her primary reason for running for the Supreme Court seat is her belief that at least some of the justices should have substantial experience as a trial court judge. “I’m far more running for that representation on the Supreme Court than against a particular person,” she said, pointing out that none of the current justices has more than a couple of months’ experience as a trial court judge.
While Hedlund won’t seek political party endorsements and does not believe that judicial races should be partisan elections, she does believe that the public is entitled to some idea of a judge’s values. “Regardless of my personal views, I’m bound to follow the law,” she added.
Hedlund said she doesn’t intend to do fundraising but hopes that through the media and debates she’ll be able to discuss her qualifications for the high court, as well as the issues affecting the judicial system.
Court of Appeals
Minnesota Court of Appeals judge Terri Stoneburner is being challenged by International Falls attorney Dan Griffith.
Griffith is no newcomer to the election process, having run against Court of Appeals Judge R.A. “Jim” Randall in 2004 and then-Court of Appeals Judge Christopher Dietzen in 2006. (Dietzen has since been elevated to the Minnesota Supreme Court.)
Griffith told Minnesota Lawyer that as in the past, he is running for judge because he believes that the people, not the governor, should be choosing judges, and that judges must be accountable to the voters. He’s also concerned over the attempt to change the current judicial election system.
“I have nothing against any of the sitting judges,” he said. “I do have something against people being selected because of their connections to the executive branch.”
While Griffith believes that the judicial office should be nonpartisan, and that judges should not bring their personal biases into their decisions, his website does provide answers to some questions that people may have about him.
“I am going to be very careful not to say how I’d rule on an issue,” he said. “But I am glad that we can finally at least talk.”
While he will be accepting contributions from supporters, Griffith is confident that it doesn’t take a lot of money to run a successful judicial campaign, pointing out that he got nearly 44 percent of the vote last time with less than $5,000.
Stoneburner, who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jesse Ventura in 2000, also faced a challenger in her first election. In 2002, she soundly defeated attorney Jeffrey Sloan. She admits that running in a contested election causes a certain amount of anxiety.
“I love my job and I want to keep my job,” she told Minnesota Lawyer last week. “But I understand that it’s the process, so I’m game.”
Stoneburner believes strongly that partisan politics should not be involved in the race. She said she has no intention of announcing her views on hot-button issues or seeking political party endorsements. She admitted that she not yet sure how her campaign will go about raising money or how much money is needed.
“This is a presidential election year, so there probably won’t be a lot of money floating around for an appellate court race,” she said. “I just plan to do what I can to get the word out about my competence, my experience and my desire to keep serving.”
