We have a very unusual situation in our 11-county southeast Minnesota 3rd Judicial District — indeed, unusual historically and across the state. There are five challengers of incumbent-appointed judges in the district, and we get to vote for all of those challengers.

Some local attorneys are very disappointed with appointed judges of the district, so they have exhibited the necessary fortitude to make an issue of it. We need to thank them for that fortitude and vote for them.

The Minnesota Judiciary and the Minnesota State Bar Association like to think that the oligarchy of the two should be above challenge, so they oppose our right to vote for judges as a means of sustaining what they self-describe as the “decorum” of the court.

Our right to vote for judges was enabled by both of the separate Democratic and Republican drafts of the Minnesota Constitution in 1857. The bipartisan public of our free territory was upset with the appointed-court Dred Scott decision of early that year, the short story of which is that the court declared that Africans or their descendants were not citizens of the United States.

So, we have it in our Constitution that judges should be elected. However, the judiciary is now gaming the system and using the constitutional loophole that judicial vacancies should be filled by temporary appointments, with the appointee standing later for election. Using the loophole, judges step down for one reason or another before an election, allowing for an appointment. Then using a later legislatively-derived loophole, derived by the oligarchy in a compromise regarding judicial elections, they are labeled as the “incumbent” on the ballot, a terrific hurdle for challengers to overcome.

It seems to me that if the courts want to earn the respect of the public, they should fully expose themselves to the will of the voters. It is only through campaigns for election that we can learn of the temperament and the backstory of those who we would like to be seated as judge. They should not be appointed in a process that is not fully transparent to the public, which is largely controlled by the self-serving, self-interested judiciary and MSBA.

The MSBA is now circulating a request that there be letters to the editor written to encourage voters to vote for their “incumbents.” I say no; flip the ballot and vote for all five non-incumbents of the district, and also include your vote for the challenger for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Don Evanson

Minnesota City