ELIMINATING your right to VOTE being considered
by MN Legislature
St. Paul, Minnesota
April 16, 2010
Amidst all the flurry and noise about national health-care and the state budget
crisis,
an insidious bill has quietly worked its way through several committees
in the MN state legislature.
Eliminating your right to vote for your judges.
Have you noticed on the election ballot the vast majority of judges run unchallenged?
The reason for this is because the MN Supreme Court, without authority to do so,
created "rules" as to who can run for office, and what they can say in a campaign.
Almost a decade ago, one candidate for the MN Supreme Court, Greg Wersal,
challenged these rules. It took him eight years of battling in court, and finally,
the United States Supreme Court determined the MN Supreme Court's rules were unconstitutional.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the MN Supreme Court rallied their friends
and
have been pushing for a bill that would ELIMINATE open elections for
the judges.
They have used fancy language, saying, "we will still have
elections, RETENTION elections".
The governor will appoint all the judges, and
if, after years deciding issues concerning the lives of people,
the people would
then decide whether to "keep" the judge.
A "committee" will evaluate the judge
and "recommend" to the people if they should vote to
"retain" the judge.
The committee will NOT evaluate if the judge followed the law and the constitutions,
but only issues such as the judge was "nice" or "on time".
IF THIS PASSES in the Legislature, there will be a question put on the ballot this fall.
The question will be if YOU want to CHANGE the Minnesota constitution.
BUT...they will NOT tell you the truth.
The "question" on
the ballot will be:
"Do you want to change the constitution "to reaffirm
the impartiality of the judiciary?"
The TRUTH is that if you vote YES...
we will be giving up our RIGHT to VOTE for our judges.
The governor will appoint his cronies.
The committee will never tell us if a judge violated the law.
And we will lose our ability to decide WHO will be our judges.
Below is an email I received from Greg Wersal, who testified at a MN Senate committee
hearing yesterday. He is running for the MN Supreme Court.
He asks the YOU contact the members on the committee and tell them to
STOP the bill.
If you think the RIGHT to VOTE is important,
please pick up the phone and call. Tell others. Post on blogs.
Nancy Lazaryan
From: Greg Wersal <gregwersal@hotmail.com>
To: "Nancy Lazaryan" <nancylazaryan@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 8:01 AM
Yesterday I attended the hearing on SF70 before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The Chair, Sen. Larry Pogemiller, Sen. Gen Olson, were “concerned” by the testimony they heard -- concerned enough that instead of acting on the bill they set it over for a week to give the members time to think about it.
Here is what they are concerned about:
1. How judges are selected:
Jd. Susan Miles of the District Judges Association attacked the bill because it does not contain mandatory merit selection. She argued that the Governor will fill the judicial positions with his friends, not qualified people, let alone highly qualified people. She also noted that once the Gov appoints the appointee does not stand for a retention election for 3+ years in which she said, “they can do a lot of damage.”
I followed up her statements with my own saying the there is no check and balance on the Gov’s ability to appoint and that if the Gov had a weird political belief that would be reflected in the judges he chose and we need some kind of check and balance. I said that mandatory merit selection would function as a check and balance.
2. The lack of accountability for decisions:
I again argued that lines 8.28 - 8.30 of the bill which state that the judicial performance commission may not evaluate judicial performance “based on substantive legal issues or opinions subject to standard appellate processes” was dangerous and needed to be removed from the bill. I focussed mostly on the fact that sentencing in a criminal case is subject to appeal. I said that we have judges right now who routinely do not follow the state sentencing guidelines and were putting people on probation and back out onto the street that should go to jail according to the guidelines. I also note that an appeal by a prosecutor is not a solution because it can take months and in the mean time the criminal is out on the streets.
Pogemiller was concerned enough to ask the others if I was right in my interpretation of the language of the bill. I was given a second chance to speak and I pointed out that we could have a judge who repeatedly has his decisions overturned on appeal and that the commission on judicial performance could not take it into account. That is when Se. Gen Olson said she had problems with the bill.
I said they should eliminate lines 8.28- 8.30 from the bill and let the commission actually look at a judges decisions to determine the judge’s performance. The committee might do that.
3. The langauege that will appear on the ballot:
I was arguing against the language which will appear on the ballot -- specifically the word that say the bill is “to reaffirm the impartiality of the judiciary”. Pogemiller stopped me and asked “you mean the language is too presumptuous?’” (line 2.8 - 2.9 of the bill) He thought it was as well. The language will steer the voter to vote for the amendment because who doesn’t want an impartial judiciary. Gen Olson was also concerned that the language of a proposed constitutional amendment can tip the voters on way or another. The problem I pointed out is that if all judges are appointed by the Gov and there is no mandatory merit selection, them we will not get an impartial judiciary at all -- at least not a judiciary that is impartial towards the Gov and his concerns.
The members of the committee are as follows:
Chair:
Lawrence J. Pogemiller 651-296-7809
Vice Chair:
Tarryl L. Clark 651-296-6455
Ranking Minority Member:
Member:
Thomas M. Bakk 651-296-8881
Linda Berglin 651-296-4261
Richard J. Cohen 651-296-5931
Keith Langseth 651-296-3205
WE need to make a concerted effort to contact these people and talk to them about the problems. I think we can change some minds.
I also believe that if we get the committee to eliminate lines 8.28 - 8.30, the judges will turn against the bill.
They do not need to hear from me. Many people think I am against this bill simply because I want to be elected. They have to be told that this bill as drafted is bad for Minnesota. And they need to hear from as many people as possible. Please sent this e-mail to others you know and encourage then to contact these Senators.
Greg Wersal
No comments:
Post a Comment