Minnesota Judicial Candidates Allowed to Campaign.
I am surprised this hasn't received more attention:
A federal appeals court paved the way Tuesday for potential knock-down partisan fights among judicial candidates in Minnesota with a ruling that will allow candidates to align with political parties and ask for campaign donations.
The ruling by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated longstanding restrictions on Minnesota's judicial candidates that attempted to prevent campaigns from affecting a judge's impartiality. The court said those restrictions violate First Amendment rights.
The ruling got cheers from those who argue that voters should have more information on judicial candidates and that candidates should be able to speak freely. But for many in the legal community, it ignited fears of the public electing judges on the basis of political or social agendas.
"It basically changes completely or potentially how we select our justices and our judges in the state," said David Schultz, a Hamline University law and political science professor. "It's a huge decision."
My feelings on this are somewhat mixed. The average voter has had very limited information about judicial candidates. Allowing candidates to be more visible with their position will also encourage more scrutiny from the MSM and non-MSM media and will lead to a more informed electorate. This is a big positive. However, I'm not sure that massively funded political campaigns are the best method for starting the dialog. I also think that we have already over politicized the judiciary and this takes us further down that road.
In my uneducated opinion, this is the proper ruling vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment, which is a positive that trumps any other impacts positive or negative.
I have always felt judges should be able to campaign, but in my perfect world, they should have their own separate parties. I've even selected party symbols. On one side, a couch - for those judges who believe in fighting crime through counseling (Milquetoast Party). On the other side, a noose - for those that believe in tough sentencing (Roy Bean Party). At higher court levels -- the constitution, a quill and an India ink pot (Constructionist Party) or the constitution, a pencil and an eraser (Living Document Party).
Other recommendations for judicial party symbols or names are encouraged.
A federal appeals court paved the way Tuesday for potential knock-down partisan fights among judicial candidates in Minnesota with a ruling that will allow candidates to align with political parties and ask for campaign donations.
The ruling by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated longstanding restrictions on Minnesota's judicial candidates that attempted to prevent campaigns from affecting a judge's impartiality. The court said those restrictions violate First Amendment rights.
The ruling got cheers from those who argue that voters should have more information on judicial candidates and that candidates should be able to speak freely. But for many in the legal community, it ignited fears of the public electing judges on the basis of political or social agendas.
"It basically changes completely or potentially how we select our justices and our judges in the state," said David Schultz, a Hamline University law and political science professor. "It's a huge decision."
My feelings on this are somewhat mixed. The average voter has had very limited information about judicial candidates. Allowing candidates to be more visible with their position will also encourage more scrutiny from the MSM and non-MSM media and will lead to a more informed electorate. This is a big positive. However, I'm not sure that massively funded political campaigns are the best method for starting the dialog. I also think that we have already over politicized the judiciary and this takes us further down that road.
In my uneducated opinion, this is the proper ruling vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment, which is a positive that trumps any other impacts positive or negative.
I have always felt judges should be able to campaign, but in my perfect world, they should have their own separate parties. I've even selected party symbols. On one side, a couch - for those judges who believe in fighting crime through counseling (Milquetoast Party). On the other side, a noose - for those that believe in tough sentencing (Roy Bean Party). At higher court levels -- the constitution, a quill and an India ink pot (Constructionist Party) or the constitution, a pencil and an eraser (Living Document Party).
Other recommendations for judicial party symbols or names are encouraged.
posted by Nordeaster | 1:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home