Dan Griffith

Education:

• William Mitchell College of Law, J.D., 1993
• University of Minnesota, B.A., 1988
• Rainy River Community College, A.A., 1985

• Private practice, attorney, 1996-present
• Rainy River Community College, adjunct professor, 1996-present
• Boyle Law Firm, attorney, 1994-96
• U.S. Army, Defense Language Institute, 1993-94
• Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, law clerk, 1993
• Hummel, Sinclair, Pearson, Evans, Hunt & Heisler, law clerk, 1992
• St. Croix County Attorney’s Office, law clerk, 1992
• Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, law clerk, 1991

• Koochiching County Bar Association
• Minnesota State Bar Association

• 4-H Club
• American Red Cross
• Children’s Justice Initiative
• Evangelical Covenant Church
• Friends Against Abuse
• KBHW Board of Directors
• Northern Life Care Center

Family: Wife, Debbie; four children

Website: www.griffithforjudge.com

Why do you want to be a judge?
I want to be part of bringing accountability back to our judicial branch. If government of the people, for the people and by the people is to survive, then we the people need to be involved in the selection of our judicial leaders. Our Minnesota Constitution clearly states that judges, “... shall be elected by the voters. ...” I believe it is very important that we not lose the ability to hold our judicial leaders accountable.

Why should voters select you rather than your opponent?
I will remember that I am a public servant first. I will stay within the constitutional boundaries of a judicial officer to apply the law, not rewrite it.

What experience do you have with the court on which you wish to sit?
I have been an attorney for 15 years. I have appeared in court hundreds of times and have taken cases to the appellate level in both state and federal court.

What are the major issues facing this court?
Judges must be accountable and transparent to the people who they work for — the voters. The fundamental issue facing our state is who should be choosing our leaders in a democracy. The Minnesota Constitution states judges, “... shall be elected by the voters. ...” Judges should be the guardians of our constitutional rights. How can we trust them to apply the constitution fairly when they are circumventing it in respect to their own jobs? Too many judges circumvent the Minnesota Constitution by making a policy of never completing their last term in office so their successor is appointed rather than elected. They take advantage of an exception clause that gives the governor the power to appoint a successor to an elected office if the officeholder did not complete their term. An appropriate use of that power was when Sen. Paul Wellstone tragically passed away and therefore did not complete his last term. Even in that circumstance, voters were still able to select their senator at the next election. Appointed judges, however, get to skip over the election if their appointment came within one year of when the election was supposed to be. This action is contrary to what a democracy is supposed to be — government by the people. “What makes America unique among nations is the idea that the power of people to govern themselves is a birthright guaranteed to all. This guiding principle set our nation on a unique course where leaders are chosen by free and fair elections and where the right to vote is treasured and protected.” [Minnesota Secretary of State website]

How can these issues realistically be addressed?
By retaining our right to vote and providing the electorate with sufficient information on judicial candidates to vote intelligently.

What role, if any, should politics play in judicial campaigns? (for example, party endorsements, discussions of political views, etc...)
Politics will always be involved with any office that exercises influence. The real question is how do we temper the politics? Our forefathers adopted a system of checks and balances with three distinct branches of government, each exercising distinct powers. Judges need to stay within their constitutional boundary to apply the law, not rewrite it. The California court’s recent decision on the definition of marriage is a good example of violating that boundary. I believe that judges should be nonpartisan. No one should have to worry about going before the Republican, Democratic, Green or Independent Party judge. A judge’s job is to apply the law fairly to the unique facts presented in a case, regardless of personal endorsement or affiliation.

What else would you like voters to know about your candidacy?
Judges have a dramatic impact on the direction of our lives and our freedoms. Currently a well-connected, powerful group is working to take away our right to elect our judicial leaders. That is the opposite of what a democracy is supposed to be. They argue we the people (voters) are incapable of selecting our public servants — judges. Minnesota’s first chief justice [Lafayette Emmett] said, “If the people are incapable of selecting their judges, they are also incapable of selecting the man who is to appoint the judges.”