Minnesota judges' group keeps position against changing judicial elections.

Byline: Barbara L. Jones

As things stand right now, the group representing the state's District Court judges will be lobbying against any legislative proposal advocating change in how judicial elections are conducted.

Even though a recent survey of their membership shows that most judges who responded believe that the state should amend its constitution in some manner to change the ways judges are selected, the judges attending a recent Minnesota District Judges Association meeting rebuffed attempts to amend their previous formal position on judicial elections. That position -- passed after the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. v. White, et. Al. -- favors maintaining the current election system and opposes switching to a retention system. (The statement doesn't specifically mention the alternative of switching to a strictly appointment-based model, but, by advocating the status quo, implicitly rejects that option as well.)

"We didn't do anything, and it's not because we didn't try," said Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles A. Porter, president of MDJA.

At its recent meeting, the MDJA board recommended that the group change its position from opposing retention elections to taking no position. It also recommended that the association change its position from supporting the existing merit-selection system to supporting a mandatory merit-selection system. The membership tabled both recommendations, Porter said.

That means that unless something changes, the MDJA's lobbyist, Sandy Neren, will work against any changes.

The outcome means the MDJA's official position is inconsistent with the survey of its own members as well as the Citizens Commission for the Preservation of an Impartial Judiciary, the Minnesota State Bar Association and the Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, all of which advocate a change in the system.