By Mark A. Severson, Attorney at Law
As Election Day approaches, one question I frequently receive is how voters should approach judicial elections, particularly when they are unfamiliar with the candidates.
Judicial elections are different from elections for legislative or executive offices. Judges are not elected to advance a political platform or represent a particular constituency. Their responsibility is to apply the law fairly and impartially, even when the resulting decision is unpopular.
Why Judicial Experience and Incumbency Matter
There are sound reasons to value judicial experience and continuity. Sitting judges develop experience managing courtrooms, evaluating evidence, applying procedural rules, and resolving difficult disputes. These responsibilities require not only legal knowledge, but also sound judgment, patience, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to fairness.
Incumbency is therefore a meaningful consideration in judicial elections. An established record of competent, impartial service provides voters with evidence of how a judge has discharged the responsibilities of office. That record deserves consideration alongside the qualifications of any challenger.
Incumbency does not provide immunity from scrutiny. Corruption, serious misconduct, gross negligence, persistent failures to perform judicial duties, or demonstrated partiality are substantial concerns that would justify a challenge to incumbents.
Absent those factors, as a general rule, a vote for the incumbent is sound. Voters should examine credible evidence of such problems rather than treating disagreement with an individual ruling as proof of judicial unfitness.
Judicial Independence Is Essential
One of the most important principles of our legal system is judicial independence.
Judges must be able to make difficult decisions based on the law and the evidence, without fear of political retaliation or public pressure. That independence protects everyone, regardless of political affiliation, personal circumstances, or the nature of the dispute.
As attorneys, we do not always agree with the decisions judges make. But disagreement with a ruling is not the same as a failure of judicial responsibility. Our legal system provides procedures for reconsideration and appeal precisely because reasonable disagreements about the law can arise.
The central considerations in evaluating judicial candidates should be integrity, competence, impartiality, experience, temperament, and fidelity to the rule of law.
An Informed Electorate Strengthens Our Courts
Judicial elections may not attract the attention given to other races, but their consequences are significant. The individuals serving on our courts make decisions affecting families, businesses, property rights, individual liberties, and public safety.
I encourage voters to take time to understand the role of our judiciary and consider the qualifications and records of those seeking judicial office.
An independent, experienced, and accountable judiciary is essential to the fair administration of justice and the protection of the rights of everyone who comes before our courts.
Mark A. Severson is a partner at Severson Porter Law in Brainerd, Minnesota, and an MSBA Certified Real Property Law Specialist.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Severson Porter Law or its other attorneys.