Tim Tingelstad

Born: Dec. 26, 1959; Detroit Lakes, Minn.

Education:

• University of North Dakota School of Law, J.D., 1985
• Concordia College, B.A., 1982

• Minnesota 9th Judicial District, magistrate, 1999-present
• Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, administrative law judge, 1997-99
• Beltrami County Attorney's Office, assistant county attorney, 1988-97
• Private practice, attorney, 1988-97
• Minnesota 9th Judicial District, law clerk, 1987

• Beltrami County Bar Association
• Minnesota State Bar Association

• Community Support Services of Bemidji
• Evangelical Covenant Church of Bemidji
• Heartland Christian Academy
• Shine the Light

Hobbies/Interests: Family activities, golf

Family: Wife, Annette; two daughters

Website: www.highesthill.com

Why do you want to be a judge?
I greatly enjoy my position as a child support magistrate for the 9th Judicial District. I am not seeking to become a Minnesota Supreme Court justice as a career advancement. I desire to serve the people of the state of Minnesota by making decisions that are consistent with the original intent of our constitution and to create and preserve the people’s right to meaningful, contested, nonpartisan judicial elections.

Why should voters select you rather than your opponent?
I am running for one of the seven seats on the Minnesota Supreme Court, and I will not focus this campaign on my opponents. The seats on the Supreme Court belong to the people of Minnesota, not to an individual, not to the governor, and not to committees. Our courts must be accountable to the people.

What experience do you have with the court on which you wish to sit?
I have over nine years of experience serving as an administrative law judge and magistrate for the 9th Judicial District. I have successful argued cases before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, but have not appeared before the Minnesota Supreme Court.

What are the major issues facing this court?
The major issue that I am addressing in this campaign is the future of judicial elections. The original intent of the Minnesota Constitution was for the people to elect our judges and for the governor to appoint judges only when vacancies arise between elections. But over time, without amending the constitution, the Minnesota Supreme Court created a meaningless judicial election process. Minnesotans now have an opportunity to become informed about their judicial elections, but our current Supreme Court is now in favor of taking away the people’s constitutional right to elect our judges.

How can these issues realistically be addressed?
The merit selection with retention elections proposal (hereinafter MSRE) is not the answer. Meaningful, contested, nonpartisan judicial elections keep our courts accountable to the people. MSRE would make the judicial branch accountable to itself, to the executive branch, and ultimately to a committee of 20 unelected and unaccountable committee members. Under MSRE, the people will never elect a judge. An “election” is the act of selecting one or more from others. A “retention election” does not include a second candidate, so it is not an “election.”

What role, if any, should politics play in judicial campaigns? (for example, party endorsements, discussions of political views, etc...)
MSRE would not remove politics from the judicial selection process, it would simply hide the politics from the people. The politics would be condensed into small, unelected and unaccountable committees. MSRE would not eliminate special interest groups from impacting judicial selection, it would create two new powerful special interest groups — the selection committee and the retention committee. Giving control of our courts to 20 unelected, unaccountable people is foolish.

What else would you like voters to know about your candidacy?
Justice is served when judges fear God and love the people. When a judge fears God more than man, he will not be subject to political partisanship pressures or give in to special interest groups. When a judge loves others more than himself, he can be the true public servant that justice requires. As a Minnesota Supreme Court justice, I will be impartial to the parties while partial to the original intent of the constitution.