A trio of judicial candidates who were backed by the Republican Party of Minnesota and tea party groups was defeated at the polls on Tuesday. Supreme Court candidates Greg Wersal and Tim Tingelstad were projected to lose by more than 20 points, and Appeals Court candidate Dan Griffith appeared to lose his challenge by about 4 points.

The three candidates had courted controversy by answering questions on the Minnesota Family Council judicial questionnaire — the only three candidates in the state to do so — and were active in partisan politics. Each said they opposed court decisions in favor or abortion rights or LGBT rights and had spoken at tea party events over the last few months.

Wersal lost to incumbent Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Helen Meyer; Tingelstad lost to Justice Alan Page; and Griffith just barely lost to Appellate Judge Larry Stauber.

Those races were also a loss for a new conservative political action committee, Justice in Minnesota, which had been backing the three candidates.

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.

Because 2008 is a change election, Tingelstad might have a shot. On the statewide ballot, the voter knows which candidate is the incumbent — it’s marked with an “I” next to the incumbent’s name. Tingelstad beat out one other primary challenger in September to ensure that he’ll be one of the top two vote recipients to advance to the general election. (He garnered 22 percent of the statewide vote to Anderson’s 63 percent.)

Tinglestad at his campaign launch event, via HighestHill.com

Officially, Tingelstad says his campaign is mainly concerned with maintaining the election of judges in Minnesota, a process that has been under serious criticism for years. But his campaign web site tells a different story.

“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.”

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 church that Tingelstad advocates injecting into the judiciary is not quite mainstream Christianity, either. Until mid-September, his campaign website had a section for volunteers called “Gideon’s Army.”

Today’s Secular Humanists, like the Midianites, appear to have the upper hand in our culture. When we sow the seeds of faith from God’s Word into our children, the Secular Humanists come against us and destroy the crops by teaching against the things of God in our schools. The people of God are being told to retreat into the caves and dens of our church buildings and homes.

The primary weapons used by the Secular Humanists have been our schools and our courts, which have indoctrinated the people into a belief in a false wall of separation between church and state.

Gideon’s Army refers to a battle in the Book of Judges where 300 Israelites vanquished 100,000 Midianites. It is also the name of a rebranding effort by members of the Joel’s Army movement.

“There is a commonly held belief in the church that the army of Joel and the army of Gideon both represent the same end time, militant and victorious church,” wrote Robert Holmes, a prophetic visionary in the Pentecostal movement, back in 1995. (For a glossary of terms related to Joel’s Army and Pentecostalism, see the Minnesota Independent report, God’s Army: A short guide to Sarah Palin’s extreme religious worldview)

In contrast, incumbent Justice Paul Anderson’s re-election campaign centers on judicial fairness for everyone. His campaign web site says:

Justice Anderson has participated extensively in professional and civic activities, particularly those involving court interpreters, multicultural diversity and racial fairness in the courts, legal education and writing, the selection and performance of judges, and access to justice.

Among other activities, he has served as chair of the Court Interpreter Advisory Committee, member of the Implementation Committee on Multicultural Diversity and Racial Fairness in the Courts, member and chairman of the Minnesota Judicial Selection Commission, and adjunct professor of the University of Minnesota Law School.

Anderson is also a Christian; he attends the House of Hope Presbyterian Church in St. Paul. Anderson has not made his faith an issue in his campaign nor made it a litmus test for judicial office.