Embracing partisanship, judge candidates weigh in on abortion, God in courts
Friday, October 29, 2010 at 10:40 am
- 23 Comments
Three statewide candidates are bucking longstanding tradition in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election: Judicial candidates Dan Griffith, Tim Tingelstad and Greg Wersal are openly weighing in on issues that could come before them if elected, and all three have endorsements by major political parties. Coming from tea party backgrounds, they have aligned themselves with the Republican Party, the Minnesota Family Council and, in one case, the Constitution Party of Minnesota, and fitting the conservative bent of those groups, the trio has opined about contentious social issues from abortion and homosexuality to the role of Christianity in schools and courtrooms. While these activities are legal, critics say that they could undermine the impartiality and nonpartisan nature of the judiciary.
Dan Griffith: Tea party activist opposes ban on religion in schools, government buildings
Griffith is running against incumbent judge Larry Stauber for the Minnesota Court of Appeals and he’s one of three candidates to answer a judicial questionnaire by the Minnesota Family Council.
Griffith has the endorsement of both the Republican Party and the Constitution Party, and he’s appeared at fundraisers for Minnesota tea party events, including a chartered bus to attend Glemn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington.
Dan Griffith
The Constitution Party of Minnesota is particularly conservative in terms of social issues, and its platform advocates making homosexuality illegal. The party also believes that English should be the official language in Minnesota and that “schools, hospitals, social services agencies, government offices, etc. should not be required to provide interpreters for clients (other than the hearing disabled). Individuals in need of these services should provide for their own assistance.”
One key point of Griffith’s platform is reforming judicial elections. In most cases, judges retire before their term is up, allowing the governor to appoint a replacement before an election. He wants to see changes to that system so that all judges are elected and not appointed. The problem, he says, is that all judges on the appellate court have been appointed: even if they were elected following their appointment, they still were not chosen by the voters.
“If I am granted the privilege of serving, I will be the first person in the history of the Appellate Court in Minnesota to be placed on the bench in the manner intended by our Constitutional framers,” Griffith told the Minnesota Independent. “That fact alone will be a continual reminder that I am a public servant, not above the people.”
But Griffith is also a servant of God. An evangelical Christian, he indicated on a Minnesota Family Council questionnaire (PDF) that he opposes court decisions that allow for public funding of abortion, prohibit school prayer and ban the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. He agreed with court cases that banned adoption by same-sex couples and assisted suicide.
Griffith’s opponent, incumbent Judge Stauber, says that justices identifying with social issues or political parties is detrimental to an impartial judiciary.
“It’s inappropriate for any sitting judge to give their personal views on any position,” he said. “To stick your neck out as a judge on the issues, wouldn’t you have to disqualify yourself if a case on those issues came before you?”
Stauber was appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty to the appellate court in 2008 and is facing his first election. Griffith has run for the bench before in 2004, 2006 and 2008 (when he ran for the Minnesota Court of Appeals). His best showing came in 2006 with 44 percent. In the last election, he got just over 40 percent.
Griffith disagrees with Stauber: “Expressing an opinion on decided cases with set facts is appropriate and no different than the judge who decided the case expressing his or her opinion when they wrote it.”
Stauber also took issue with a quote that Griffith often uses from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who said, “We should elect of all people Christians.”
“To me, we’ve had some great Jewish jurists in Minnesota,” Stauber told the Minnesota Independent. “I don’t know if we’ve had any Muslim jurists yet, and I’m sure we’ve had some great atheist jurists. What does that quote tell the public about their judges?”
Griffith defended his use of Jay’s quote. “I think he was illustrating that if a person believes they are accountable for their actions in another life respecting their conduct in this, then they make better public servants,” he said. “Why? Because such a person believes even if they can fool everyone here (any politicians come to mind), they cannot fool God and that will affect their actions here.”
He added, “It should not matter what a judge’s personal beliefs are.”
Stauber, an Army veteran, says he’s been opposed to mixing partisan politics with the judiciary for a long time. “That’s been my position even before I was a judge,” he said. “I am nonpartisan.”
Stauber has trounced Griffith on recent “plebiscites,” which are internal polls of state lawyers about their preferences this election. For example, the International Falls Bar Association — which is based in Griffith’s hometown — voted unanimously for Stauber. The Minnesota State Bar, for example, gave Stauber 89 percent and Griffith 11 percent.
Greg Wersal
Greg Wersal: Fought to overturn ban on party endorsements, fundraising in judicial races
Griffith is one of three judicial candidates that are backed by a new political action committee called Justice in Minnesota. Greg Wersal is another.
Wersal is running for Minnesota Supreme Court and has been fighting rules that prevent judicial candidate from getting involved in party politics. Backed by the Republican Party of Minnesota, he’s won several important court cases. In 2006, Wersal challenged Minnesota’s ban on party endorsements for judicial candidates. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he won. The Minnesota GOP now backs candidates and is the only major party in the state to inject partisan politics into the judicial election system.
Wersal won a second big case in July when he sued the state to overturn a ban on judicial candidate fundraising. Prior to July, candidates could not solicit funds directly. Wersal’s win means that political money can flow into judicial races. In addition, the court also ruled that judicial candidates can endorse other candidates for office.
A social conservative, Wersal opposed a Minnesota court decision which overturned sodomy laws. He’s been a popular tea party speaker around the state, and is endorsed by the Republican party. While he doesn’t mention his faith as publicly as Griffith, he answered the Minnesota Family Council’s controversial questionnaire answering virtually the same as Griffith except one instance: Wersal opposed overturning sodomy laws, Griffith agreed they were unconstitutional.
Wersal is challenging Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer.
Tim Tingelstad
Tim Tingelstad: “Judges must be God-fearing men and women”
Another candidate for Supreme Court is Tim Tingelstad, who is very passionate about bringing God to the bench. He’s also Republican party endorsed .
“As God’s Word has been removed from our public lives, the resulting darkness has led to our present social disorder and political divisions,” his website, Highest Hill, reads. “The correction of these problems will only begin when the Light of Truth is returned to our land’s highest hills, the Supreme Courts. Until our highest courts return to an acknowledgment of the existence of God and His Truth, the people will continue to walk in the confusion of darkness.”
As the Minnesota Independent reported in 2008, he believes “judges must be God-fearing men and women.”
The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.
Tingelstad is challenging Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page.
Partisanship in judicial races presents significant issues for voters, writes George W. Soule for the William Mitchell Law Review. In is 2008 paper, Soule analyzed the campaigns of Wersal and Tingelstad following the court decision that opened up judicial elections to partisanship.
Partisan judicial elections focused on the hot-button issues of the day may also deceive voters. Minnesota courts, especially district courts, rarely if ever issue rulings on issues such as abortion, Campaigns based on these gun control or same-sex marriage issues may disingenuously distract voters from real issues, such as qualifications, experience, demeanor, and philosophy. In addition, a candidate who takes positions on divisive issues may be disqualified from presiding over proceedings involving those issues. Turning judicial elections into partisan battlegrounds, targeted by special interests with large war chests, may provide a significant disincentive for prospective judicial candidates. Many lawyers who would be good judges have little political background and are wary of running a high-profile election campaign. They want to focus on being good judges, not politicians. If elections turn out to be partisan, expensive battles, many qualified judicial candidates may be deterred.
Soule wrote his paper well before the tea party became a political reality and a source of political support for three candidates for the bench.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter23 Comments
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
Disgusting. Judges should know how to put aside personal belief for legal reality.
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Good Grief!! How about we just turn over our judicial system and all decision making to the Pope. Would that make the Tea Party and Republicans happy??
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Thank you, Andy. As I strongly believe in separation of church and state, this makes 3 of my 4 judicial choices clear and easy.
I wish I knew as much about the Klugman/Peterson contest.
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Why would anyone who believes in a strong, impartial judiciary want to even listen to any judge candidate that chooses to focus on social issues or political parties or special interests rather than his “qualifications, experience, demeanor, and philosophy”?
Comment posted October 29, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
Found this at http://www.dolanmedia.com -
“Peterson/Klugman
A newcomer with what up to now has been a low profile in the legal community is Roxann Klugman of Afton, who filed against Judge Randolph Peterson on the last day for filings.
At the time of filing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s lawyer registration page stated that Klugman was not authorized to practice law because she was under suspension for nonpayment of fees. Shortly after filing, Klugman brought her fees up to current status, and is now authorized to practice law.
Peterson has served on the court since 1990 when he was appointed by Gov. Rudy Perpich. He served in the Minnesota Senate from 1981 to 1990 and was in private practice before going on the bench. Peterson said he doesn’t know Klugman and has no inkling why she filed against him.
Peterson has never faced a challenger before and has just begun to think about campaigning, he told Minnesota Lawyer. “I’m not going to do anything to turn our judicial elections into political contests,” he said. “People have to have confidence that we are going to make decisions based on law.”
Comment posted October 30, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Thank you, D. Hoffman. You reminded me of Judgepedia, which shows Klugman as a blank slate.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Roxann_Klugman
I also found nothing meaningful about her here:
http://candidates.sos.state.mn.us/CandidateFilingResults.aspx?county=0&municipality=0&schooldistrict=0&hospitaldistrict=0&level=1&party=0&federal=False&judicial=True&executive=False&senate=False&representative=False&title=&office=0&candidateid=0
“Judge Peterson is backed by the Minnesota Bar:
Meanwhile, Judge Randolph Peterson received 95 percent of lawyer votes to stealth challenger Roxann Klugman’s 5 percent. Little is known of Klugman, whose campaign strategy and motivations for running appear to be equally mysterious.”
“Roxann Klugman is a tax attorney and author of ‘The Dividend Growth Investment Strategy’. The only political notion of Ms. Klugman that I could find was her signing the NRSC pledge. This pledge is organized by a group called Truth Laid Bear and is a pledge to not donate money to republican senators who criticized the commitment of additional troops to Iraq.”
http://www.mncampaignreport.com/diary/7286/minnesota-judicial-elections-2010
The information Klugman supplied to the League of Women Voters is full of Tea Party/republican catch-phrases, which suggests to me that she has a conservative agenda hiding up her sleeve.
http://www.lwvmn.org/ Find your precinct and look under candidate info.
Comment posted October 30, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
I wish someone would run on a platform of bringing justice into the legal system. I’d love to turn out every single member of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Most of them are political appointees. Although most decisions are based on precedent and fact, quite a few call for injustices to be recitfied. The people who get into the judiciary are risk averse people who “go with the flow” and are unwilling to upset injustices lest they upset their comfortable sinecures.
The challengers here are result oriented challengers with an agenda and a political ax to grind. They are not looking to rectify injustice. Definitely not material for a position in the judiciary. Thanks for this profile, Andy!
Comment posted October 30, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
So a guy running for judge thinks the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution is “a myth”? This article reads like something out of The Onion. Teabagger reality has lapped our satire. And then commenters like “jonerik” that are upset that judges are “political appointees” – despite the rather obvious evidence that the appointees are far more qualified than the tea party fantasists now running…it’s a sad day for democracy if even one of these theocrats wins. America is one of the world’s only explicitly secular countries. It’s one of our greatest achievements as a nation. I’m going to defend it on Tuesday, that’s for sure. I’ll be voting in every single one of these races.
Comment posted October 31, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
“The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI, US Constitution.
Tingelstad is someone incapable of taking an oath of office under the Constitution. NOBODY who wants the Constitution to survive should vote for this theocrat. His kind mark the beginning of the end of rule of law, and have no place whatsoever in the American system of Justice.
Certainly, someone with such disdain for secular law does not belong on the State Supreme Court!
Comment posted November 1, 2010 @ 12:02 am
Dominionist theology and the American Taliban bringing “biblical law” to a town near you, and soon. Brava Zara Lee!
Comment posted November 1, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
Susan
“The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth”. Tingelstad did not state that “the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution is ‘a myth’ “. Please re-check the U.S. Constitution and let me, and other posters, know where the words “separation of church and state,” or a similar words, appear wilthin it.
I believe those words were written in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to a friend or colleague. His opinion is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
The statement that “Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first” does bother me somewhat. Yes, I believe in God, and I understand that “when you elect a person, you elect his/her conscience” (Paraphrased from Burke – I think), but others may believe in Vishnu, Buddha, or Allah. Sharia anyone?
Judicial rulings should be based on the laws as written, or common law and legal precedent if no written statutes exist, and nothing else. The Bill of Rights takes precedence over all.
Zera Lee, you stated:
“Tingelstad is someone incapable of taking an oath of office under the Constitution. NOBODY who wants the Constitution to survive should vote for this theocrat. His kind mark the beginning of the end of rule of law, and have no place whatsoever in the American system of Justice.”
“Certainly, someone with such disdain for secular law does not belong on the State Supreme Court!”
So are you applying an unconstitutional test to a candidate for public office?
Comment posted November 1, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
I feel sorry for all of you “God” haters! But I shouldn’t judge you because you really do
not understand what you are saying or why you are acting this way. You are like so
many of the masses that do not realize that they are just pons of our real enemy. Your eyes ( spiritual eyes ) need to be opened by the power of the “Holy Spirit” of the living
GOD. You all need to repent and give your lives over to God son; “Jesus The Christ”
( Christ means “Messiah” or savior from our sins)..He died and took our place; our punishment; what we all deserve. Because he loves us, He laid down His life for us–
Then He defeated death and rose from the dead; that we can have eternal life with Him
in heaven!!! PTL This is a historical fact!!! Trust in Him today!!
Comment posted November 1, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
> So are you applying an unconstitutional test to a candidate for public office?
This question does not make sense – and should be disregarded. Why?
1. There is no religious test required as a qualification of holding a public office.
Even so,
2. When sworn in, the public official swears to defend the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution.
3. Tinglestad made it quite clear that the “Word of God” comes first – not the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. By this admission, he would not be able to uphold that basic oath of public office. Just as Zera Lee said. QED.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 6:03 am
@Bill K
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Again, from Article VI, US Constitution.
(notwithstanding means no exceptions)
Far from suggesting an unconstitutional test, I am requiring anyone who aspires to hold “any Office or public Trust under the United States” to obey the Constitution – and to recognize it (and not the Bible/Torah/Koran…) as “the supreme Law of the Land” – as specified in the Constitution!
Anyone who would put the Bible above “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States” would act in defiance of the constitution.
That is why they disqualify themselves from “any Office or public Trust.”
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 7:43 am
This exagerated article stretches the truth. It is obviously designed to make these men look like extreemists. I say, it’s about time we returned to some kind of sanity in our courts.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 7:46 am
You guys are over the top!! All I see is fear in your words. If you were really serious about this you would use some real logic and realize that you are twisting facts and
information to feed your own unfounded fears. FACT–Most of our founders (probably
all of them) were much stronger Christians then any of these guys running for these
positions. Fact— All of our documents; such as the constitution were all based, or inspired by Biblical thought and principals. We as a nation need to repent for falling
away from these basic truths.
Trackback posted November 2, 2010 @ 8:05 am
Embracing partisanship, judge candidates weigh in on abortion, God in courts…
So begins a tale of religious corruption of the judiciary…….
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 8:46 am
I am so thankful for this good information, As a believer in Christ as the atonement for our sinful nature, All those who know the truth and deny it, are under the Law of sin and death, I am not confused about where our evil and lawless leaders have gone wrong, these three would each make a most welcomed impact upon the legal system whi8ch is wrought with bribes and favors. In this most liberal and self gratifying State of ours, I am glad just to read about men that still press onto a higher calling. I will defiantly be voting for one of these three candidates, not against those who are pursuers of their liberal and illicit “lifestyle”, but for a Godly man to sit in the seat of judgment. .Where I may once again, may trust in our system of laws and justice.
Your help on making this decision clear, was most welcomed.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 9:29 am
Jimmy K, Thomas Jefferson was an athiest. James Madison was a prominant Unitarian. They were at most Deists, typical of the radical liberals of their time – people radical enough to overthrow a monarchy. Why don’t you just admit that you want to impose a new form of theocracy, one never embraced in this country, the way the Islamic fundamentalists imposed their theocracy on countries like Kuwait, where women wore miniskirts in the big cities only a couple of decades ago? Fundamentalist social engineering is happening worldwide, and anyone who doesn’t want religious busybodies dominating your every move needs to stand up against it at the ballot box.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 9:36 am
It is time of the mindless defenders of religion–I mean you who don’t go to church and don’t know the dogma, but somehow feel religious–to stop and think. Extremists incapable of critical thinking, who “know the truth”, are very unlikely to bring us together or to provide answers to our serious problems . They are likely to bring us down. The US is fundamentally religious more than any other industrialized country. The Age of Reason occurred 300 years ago, it is past time that we grow up and embrace reason. Our downfall is assured if we continue to let ignorant bigots determine our national identity.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
27 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees. Most of the laws that have ruled our land from it’s birth came from biblical truth and values. I recommend the video series “The Truth Project” to help people to have a better understanding of our nations inception.
Comment posted November 2, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
I tend to agree with “Zera Lee”. Lee writes:
“I am requiring anyone who aspires to hold “any Office or public Trust under the United States” to obey the Constitution – and to recognize it (and not the Bible/Torah/Koran…) as “the supreme Law of the Land” – as specified in the Constitution!”
That is really the main issue here, no?
That said, no person is able to be totally objective. Whatever a person’s beliefs (agnostics and atheists have beliefs too), those beliefs will affect how he/she interprets the Constitution. I would assert that it is impossible for one’s beliefs not to affect his/her decision making! As we all know, the Constitution is not “cut and dry”; it must be interpreted. I would also ask, “How was the Constitution formed?” People wrote it. Do I think all of them were Christians? No. Do I think that much of the Constitution was written on the basis of beliefs held by many that stemmed from Judeo-Christian beliefs/laws/values/ethics? Yes. I don’t know how anyone can dispute that. On what basis does on judge right from wrong or good from evil? Why do we have laws? How did we, as a people, come up with these laws? My point is that we simply cannot honestly make these separations. We are humans. Humans created the Constitution. Humans are interpreting the Constitution. Humans are enforcing the Constitution.
Finally, (and I am directing this last comment to “Rob C”) it is false and arrogant to assert that those who have religious beliefs lack or are incapable of reason. You seem to be making a blanket statement. Yes, there are right-winged, extremist, fundamentalist, religious, ignorant, irrational bigots out there. There are also some nutty, irrational, bigoted, ignorant, extremist liberals out there.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
