Selecting Judges in Minnesota

- The state of Minnesota selects its state supreme court judges by means of non partisan general elections. Partisanship and political parties play a huge role in the nomination of these candidates ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

- The state of Minnesota selects its intermediate appellate court judges by means of non partisan elections, opposite to that of supreme court judges ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

- The state of Minnesota selects trial court judges by means of non partisan elections for all general jurisdiction judges ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

Popular elections have their differences. On the other hand federal judges at the national level are appointed by the president and approved by the United States Senate. Federal judges do not have a fixed term and are appointed for life. Having popular elections at the state and local levels has its own benefits. Popular election in a way sort of strengthens the judiciary. Judges that are forced to run for office and seek reelection would consistently seek to please public opinion and stay close to we the people, which is indeed what local and state justice's are supposed to do. The founding fathers of this nation wanted the judicial branch to completely steer clear of political partisanship, to be free of the chains of partisanship, and free to be able to interpret the law fairly without any bias judgment. Partisanship creates bias judgment (Hall, 1999).

Sources:

Hall, K. 1999. The Judiciary on Trial: State Constitutional Reform and the rise of an Elected Judiciary. The historian 46. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howdid/kermit.html

Justice at Stake Campaign, National Surveys of American Voters and State Judges,. October 2001 – January 2002. [PDF document]. Available at www.justiceatstake.org