You've Got to be Kidding: The Alice in Wonderland of Judicial Elections

Posted on August 28, 2008 by Gavin Craig

 In Minnesota, when a judicial vacancy occurs, the Governor appoints a person to the position until the next election when a successor can be elected.  This happened in the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Governor appointed a well-qualified jurist, Lorie Gilda.  The position is now up for election.

 Usually the person appointed runs for the seat to which they were appointed.  Other candidates can and do file to run for these various judgeships.  In the upcoming election a local lawyer, Jill Clark, is also running for the seat currently occupied by Justice Gilda.  Clark has run for a judicial position before, and lost.

Clark apparently thinks that the best election strategy is to try to get the current justice disqualified.  So, as lawyers do, she sued.  Clark filed her case directly with the Minnesota Supreme Court and argued that Lorie Gilda is disqualified to run for the seat because she can’t succeed herself.  To be kind, this argument is at best a very tortured reading of the statute.  Next she argued that Lorie Gilda, the judge currently in the position, could not be designated as the “Incumbent.”  Not surprisingly, when the case was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court, all of the sitting justices had conflicts, so a panel of retired Minnesota Supreme Court justices was appointed to hear the case and make a decision.   

 Also not surprisingly, Clark lost.  She then filed a motion to have Justice Gilda removed from the ballot pending her appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  This motion was quickly denied.   The Minnesota Lawyer Blog has an interesting series on the ongoing story. Clark has now apparently filed a motion with Justice Alito of the United State Supreme Court asking for an injunction to grant her the same relief that was already denied her by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

I think Clark does have one interesting point:  Sitting judges are a virtual lock for re-election, so the appointment of a judge to a judgeship effectively eliminates open judicial elections.  While this argument may have some merit, it is a question for the legislature, not the courts. 

The Minnesota Lawyer is following this story closely and has good updates.  I’m sure there will more to this story. 

Tags: , , , , , ,