Minnesota State Bar Association

E-Poll

Endorsing & Evaluating Judges
Who judges the judges? Here's what our readers say.*

Other recent surveys | Current Issue

66% Agree
27% Disagree
5% No Response
1. Judicial candidates should decline endorsements from private interests as well as from political parties.

Comments:

Most people don't have enough information on judges to evaluate them properly. Attaching party names or affiliations will simply pigeon hole judges into "categories."

85% Agree
10% Disagree
5% No Response
2. Political party endorsement of judicial candidates threatens the independence of the judiciary.

32% Agree
56% Disagree
12% No Response
3. Judicial elections as now conducted in Minnesota provide democratic legitimacy for judges without offering voters a real choice.

Comments:

Our system is working as well as any other. It's not without flaw but no system is. Judges may want lifetime tenure -- that won't happen -- so make the system we now have to be the best we can.

12% Agree
78% Disagree
10% No Response 4. A judge's political affiliation is generally a reliable indicator of how he or she will rule.

17% Agree
73% Disagree
10% No Response
5. Judicial evaluation by nonjudges threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Comments:

Attorneys are the only segment of our society qualified to evaluate judges -- not political parties or special interest groups. The judges "must" remain independent from these political groups!

Although attorneys may be best qualified to evaluate judges, I would not want to see attorney biases presented as appropriate evaluation, especially if anecdotal.

44% Agree
51% Disagree
5% No Response
6. Judicial elections as currently conducted in Minnesota ensure that judges are accountable for their performance.

Comments:

The Constitution provides that judges are to be elected by the people. Either amend the Constitution or allow for free elections conducted in the same way as all our other elections to public office.

If judges are to be elected, a retention ballot, such as the Missouri Plan, is the only viable way to maintain an independent judiciary with accountability to the public.

Integrity in judicial opinions should be the basis for reelection. Where that fails, evaluations and endorsements could explain a lot.

Our Minnesota system isn't perfect but it is probably as good or better than any other system. Really bad judges sometimes get voted out. Decent judges are generally protected from political pressure. While I would prefer that only lawyers elect judges, the civilian community is unlikely to find that palatable.

Regarding question six; The appellate courts make trial court judges accountable. Regarding question ten; The Judicial Selection Committees used by Gov. Carlson and Gov. Ventura have had a significant impact on the quality of the judiciary that is not being taken into consideration. Your poll questions are too simplistic a response to the issue.

54% Agree
39% Disagree
5% No Response
7. Judicial selection is too important to be removed from the electoral process.

Comments:

Rather than being elected by the general populace, judges should be appointed after strict review and testing. Judges should be subject to removal by a body such as the state legislature.

The appointment process is far more political than any proposed election, and should be dismantled in the best interests of the courts, the parties, and justice.

The state should abandon judicial elections and follow the federal system of appointment and retention. Any general (or party-influenced) election is subject to the improper political influences we are now seeing.

22% Agree
66% Disagree
12% No Response

8. You can remove a judge from politics but you can't remove politics from a judge.

Comments:

While politics can never be removed from the judiciary, the judiciary can be freed from the rigors of partisan politics and the pressures of campaigning for reelection. We need to find a better way.

76% Agree
14% Disagree
10% No Response

9. Judicial evaluation is too important to be left to the judiciary.

Comments:

Disinterested law professors ought to be used to evaluate the quality of appellate judges. Don't have a good equivalent for trial court judges -- maybe clergy?

19% Agree
81% Disagree

10.Attorneys who have appeared before a judge are best qualified to evaluate whether that judge should be endorsed for reelection.

Comments:

This should be added to question 10, "Peer evaluation is important too." The current system has become so adversarial that I think something must be done to work out a system that is acceptable to judges and attorneys. Have we tried mediating this with the judges?

Parties who have appeared before a judge are the ones truly qualified to evaluate. It is their courthouse.

This poll appeared in the July 2000 print and online versions of Bench & Bar.

	66% Agree 27% Disagree 5% No Response	1. Judicial candidates should decline endorsements from private interests as well as from political parties. Comments: Most people don't have enough information on judges to evaluate them properly. Attaching party names or affiliations will simply pigeon hole judges into "categories."

	85% Agree 10% Disagree 5% No Response	2. Political party endorsement of judicial candidates threatens the independence of the judiciary.

	32% Agree 56% Disagree 12% No Response	3. Judicial elections as now conducted in Minnesota provide democratic legitimacy for judges without offering voters a real choice. Comments: Our system is working as well as any other. It's not without flaw but no system is. Judges may want lifetime tenure -- that won't happen -- so make the system we now have to be the best we can.

	12% Agree 78% Disagree 10% No Response	4. A judge's political affiliation is generally a reliable indicator of how he or she will rule.

	17% Agree 73% Disagree 10% No Response	5. Judicial evaluation by nonjudges threatens the independence of the judiciary. Comments: Attorneys are the only segment of our society qualified to evaluate judges -- not political parties or special interest groups. The judges "must" remain independent from these political groups! Although attorneys may be best qualified to evaluate judges, I would not want to see attorney biases presented as appropriate evaluation, especially if anecdotal.

	44% Agree 51% Disagree 5% No Response	6. Judicial elections as currently conducted in Minnesota ensure that judges are accountable for their performance. Comments: The Constitution provides that judges are to be elected by the people. Either amend the Constitution or allow for free elections conducted in the same way as all our other elections to public office. If judges are to be elected, a retention ballot, such as the Missouri Plan, is the only viable way to maintain an independent judiciary with accountability to the public. Integrity in judicial opinions should be the basis for reelection. Where that fails, evaluations and endorsements could explain a lot. Our Minnesota system isn't perfect but it is probably as good or better than any other system. Really bad judges sometimes get voted out. Decent judges are generally protected from political pressure. While I would prefer that only lawyers elect judges, the civilian community is unlikely to find that palatable. Regarding question six; The appellate courts make trial court judges accountable. Regarding question ten; The Judicial Selection Committees used by Gov. Carlson and Gov. Ventura have had a significant impact on the quality of the judiciary that is not being taken into consideration. Your poll questions are too simplistic a response to the issue.

	54% Agree 39% Disagree 5% No Response	7. Judicial selection is too important to be removed from the electoral process. Comments: Rather than being elected by the general populace, judges should be appointed after strict review and testing. Judges should be subject to removal by a body such as the state legislature. The appointment process is far more political than any proposed election, and should be dismantled in the best interests of the courts, the parties, and justice. The state should abandon judicial elections and follow the federal system of appointment and retention. Any general (or party-influenced) election is subject to the improper political influences we are now seeing.

	22% Agree 66% Disagree 12% No Response	8. You can remove a judge from politics but you can't remove politics from a judge. Comments: While politics can never be removed from the judiciary, the judiciary can be freed from the rigors of partisan politics and the pressures of campaigning for reelection. We need to find a better way.

	76% Agree 14% Disagree 10% No Response	9. Judicial evaluation is too important to be left to the judiciary. Comments: Disinterested law professors ought to be used to evaluate the quality of appellate judges. Don't have a good equivalent for trial court judges -- maybe clergy?

	19% Agree 81% Disagree	10.Attorneys who have appeared before a judge are best qualified to evaluate whether that judge should be endorsed for reelection. Comments: This should be added to question 10, "Peer evaluation is important too." The current system has become so adversarial that I think something must be done to work out a system that is acceptable to judges and attorneys. Have we tried mediating this with the judges? Parties who have appeared before a judge are the ones truly qualified to evaluate. It is their courthouse.