Minnesota’s appellate court contests so far a fairly civil affair
by Michelle Lore Associate Editor
Statewide candidates in Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judicial races. From top left: Justice Paul Anderson, Justice Lorie S.Gildea and Judge Terri Stoneburner. From bottom left: Dan Griffith, Tim Tingelstad and Judge Deborah Hedlund. |
Total contributions to appellate court candidates
Jan. 1 - Aug. 18, 2008
INCUMBENTS
Paul Anderson $17,290
Lorie Skjerven Gildea $26,785*
Terri Stoneburner $8,700**
CHALLENGERS
Tim Tingelstad $ 4,830
Deborah Hedlund $ 600
Dan Griffith $ 2,275
* Has since reported receiving an additional $9,000 in contributions from two separate sources.
** Current as of Oct. 8
Source: Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
Fears of politicized campaigns, special-interest involvement have not come to fruition.
Jan. 1 - Aug. 18, 2008
INCUMBENTS
Paul Anderson $17,290
Lorie Skjerven Gildea $26,785*
Terri Stoneburner $8,700**
CHALLENGERS
Tim Tingelstad $ 4,830
Deborah Hedlund $ 600
Dan Griffith $ 2,275
* Has since reported receiving an additional $9,000 in contributions from two separate sources.
** Current as of Oct. 8
Source: Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
It appears that Minnesota might escape the expensive, special-interest driven appellate court elections that some other states have endured in the last few years.
To date, the most remarkable thing about the state’s three contested appellate court races has been how unremarkable they have been. There have been no political party endorsements, no big influx of special-interest money and no nasty attack ads. No appellate candidate reports raising or spending more than $40,000, which is low for an appellate seat even by Minnesota standards. (There have been a couple of past appellate races where contributions to a particular have reached the low six figures. By contrast, Wisconsin earlier this year had a race for a single Supreme Court seat where the two candidates combined spent more than $5 million.)
Minneapolis appellate attorney and veteran court watcher Charles Lundberg marveled at how quiet the judicial campaigns have been, and told Minnesota Lawyer that he has no reason to expect that anything will change over the next four weeks.
“The races have been fairly civil, no big fireworks,” he said. “I’ve been holding my breath that [what’s gone on in other states] won’t happen here but there hasn’t even been a hint of it. Both the state bar and the Hennepin bar have committees ready to jump on campaign problems and they haven’t had to do anything.”
In the two Supreme Court races, Justice Paul Anderson will square off against 9th District judicial magistrate Tim Tingelstad next month, while Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea faces a challenge from Hennepin County District Court Judge Deborah Hedlund.
On the Court of Appeals, only Judge Terri Stoneburner faces a challenge, from International Falls attorney Dan Griffith.
But all six candidates running for an appellate court this year expressed the view that mixing partisan politics into judicial elections would be inappropriate. A few added that they are pleased that they can now at least provide voters with some idea of their values and belief systems without fearing they will run afoul of the judicial canons.
Experienced candidates
One of the latter candidates is Tingelstad, who first sought a spot on the high court in 2004, when he unsuccessfully ran against Justice Alan Page. Two years ago, he made a bid for a seat on the 9th Judicial District Court bench, but didn’t get past the primary in three-person race.
A continuing theme of Tingelstad’s campaigns has been that he would bring a “biblical worldview” to the bench. The exact way in which that message plays into his high court candidacy is difficult to get into a sound bite, he said.
“If we want a united country and a united nation, the only thing that will unite is if we all agree it’s not our opinion we need to seek, it’s what God says,” he said. “So that’s why I believe that without God there is no truth and the law is just a manipulation by those in power.”
Yet Tingelstad, who has been a magistrate judge on the District Court for nearly a decade, has said that he would follow the law as a high court justice, not try to impose his religious views.
The other plank of Tingelstad’s platform is his support for maintaining “meaningful, contested, nonpartisan judicial elections.” He welcomed the White decisions because, he said, candidates were finally able to talk about what they believe in and who they are. “White was a good decision, not one we should be running away from.”
Tingelstad said that his background as a magistrate judge provides him with valuable experience hearing trial court cases that is lacked by his opponent, who never sat on the District Court bench. Tingelstad added that as a former small-town practitioner, he gained experience in a wide variety of practice areas -- something that will serve him well as on an appellate court that hears all different kinds of cases.
Tingelstad’s tactics in this election mirror what he’s done in prior years -- getting the word out about his candidacy through word of mouth and the Internet. This year, however, he’s also planning to put out some lawn signs, a strategy used successfully by one of his opponents in his 2004 District Court bid. “It’s shallow, but it’s important,” he said.
Tingelstad stressed that it’s difficult running a statewide campaign from the 9th District, and said he intends to get to the Twin Cities to attend as many social functions, including political gatherings, as he can to hand out cards. And he’ll have to do it on evenings and weekends because he can’t get time away from work to campaign.
No stranger to judicial campaigning himself, Anderson defeated a challenge to his seat in 2002 from Minneapolis engineer, entrepreneur and attorney Jack Baker.
Anderson, the high court’s second most senior justice, distinguishes himself from Tingelstad primarily through his experience, his record and his commitment to making the state’s judicial system work. In fact, Anderson said that he’s not afraid to put his record up against anyone as far as his commitment and work ethic goes.
“I think people should look at my open-minded, fair and just approach to the law,” said Anderson, who headed the state Court of Appeals before being elevated to the high court in 19914 years ago. “I think I’ve built a reputation that really does show that I will give everybody a fair shot in the court no matter what their background, orientation or particular view is.”
For the next four weeks, Anderson will continue to do what he’s been doing -- getting out and meeting people all over the state and educating them on the judiciary, the government and his qualifications to remain on the high court.
The justice is well known for his outreach efforts. He is ubiquitous at legal community and civic events, and has even been known to take the time to educate the occasional passing tourist in the Capitol rotunda on the state’s judiciary. The former chief justice publicly referred to Anderson as the court’s “goodwill ambassador.”
Statewide first-timers
In the three-person primary race for her seat, Gildea easily came in first. Hedlund came in second after squeaking by Golden Valley attorney Jill Clark by a little more than 1,300 votes.
Hedlund, a District Court judge for 28 years, said she’s running for the high court primarily because there is not a justice on the court that has significant experience on the trial court bench. She has pointed out that of the seven high court justices, only one, Gildea, has served on the District Court bench, and that was only for a few months before she was elevated to the high court.
“While they are very bright, wonderful individuals up there, I think it matters -- it matters a lot whether or not they have practical experience and exposure to the trial court experience,” she said.
Hedlund said she’s spreading news of her candidacy and her qualifications through word of mouth, the Internet, YouTube, e-mail and lawn signs. She’ll also use up to 10 days of vacation time prior to the election in order to campaign full time.
Hedlund has challenged Gildea to voluntarily drop the “incumbent” designation from the November ballot. (During the primary, Clark filed a suit challenging the statute providing for the “incumbent” notation on the ballot.)
“This is not about [Gildea] not being a good person. It’s about who is the most qualified candidate,” said Hedlund. “In this particular case, the word ‘incumbent’ does not describe the more experienced candidate.”
Gildea’s response is that the statute is directed at election officials, not her, and it clearly states that they shall include the incumbent designation on the ballot. “Shall means shall,” she said, also adding that, in any event, “it’s the truth, I am the incumbent in this race.”
Gildea also disputes Hedlund’s contention that Hedlund is more qualified to serve on the high court.
“I served on the trial court,” Gildea pointed out. “[Hedlund] has more years of experience serving on the trial court than I do. That length of experience might, might be relevant if we were running for a job on the trial court. But we’re not. We’re running for a job on the Minnesota Supreme Court and I have years of experience doing that job, and my opponent has zero.”
Gildea has been getting her name and qualifications out to as many voters as she can, running what she calls a “positive, grass roots campaign.” She’s put up lawn signs and has been meeting with voters all over the state -- in community and civic settings, classrooms, living rooms, conference rooms, at fairs and along parade routes. Anticipating she would draw an opponent, Gildea had been storing up vacation days so she could use them during her campaign.
“I have found the campaign to be very invigorating and enjoyable. I love my job and I enjoy taking with voters about it,” she said.
Court of Appeals
This is Griffith’s third stab at the Court of Appeals, previously running against now retired Judge Jim Randall in 2004 and then-Court of Appeals Judge Christopher Dietzen in 2006. (Dietzen has since been elevated to the Minnesota Supreme Court.)
As in the past, Griffith said he is running because of his belief that the people should choose their judges and that judges must be accountable to the voters. He said he’s confident that his experience in private practice and as a prosecutor will serve him well as an appellate judge. And because he is from Greater Minnesota, he says he can bring a perspective to the court that other judges do not have.
Throughout his campaign, Griffith has also expressed concern over what he sees as a problem with the judiciary in general. “I really don’t think it’s that difficult to be a judge,” he said. “The job of a judge is to apply the law; they are not supposed to be the makers of the law or rewriters of the law. That’s the Legislature’s job.”
Despite his stated concerns about the judiciary, Griffith refuses to engage in personal attacks against specific judges.
“What I am attacking, if anything, is that you should know who your judges are and they need to be accountable to us and they shouldn’t be hiding behind a veil,” he said. “And they most definitely should not be supporting a system that prevents the voter from exercising their most fundamental right … the right to choose your leaders.”
Unable to take time off to campaign, Griffith said he’ll continue to do what he’s been doing since he filed for office in July -- talking to as many people as he can, distributing flyers and directing voters to his website.
This isn’t Stoneburner’s first campaign; she soundly defeated attorney Jeffrey Sloan in 2002. Stoneburner’s strategy for the remainder of this campaign is to stress her experience -- her years in private practice, her 10 years on the District Court bench and her eight years on the appellate court. She’s also served on numerous committees, commissions and task forces over the years, working to improve access to justice and the delivery of justice in the state.
“I think the depth and breadth of my experience, plus my life experience, is just much greater than my opponent’s,” Stoneburner said.
The judge intends to continue to get word out to voters across the state about her qualifications and her desire to continue to serve as an appellate court jurist, going virtually anywhere she’s invited to go.
“Being on the court you really realize the fragility of the American system of justice and how it really does depend on the trust and confidence of the people,” she said.
