Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson is working the rooms across the state to garner support for an additional $54 million for the justice system and told Minnesota Lawyer he’s gratified at the public reception so far although he knows there is a lot more work to do with the governor and the legislature. A measure of the court’s success in getting its message out was Sunday’s editorial in the St. Cloud Times, “Our view: Justice system requires funding.” It cautions, “Remember, legislators and the governor largely created this situation with their latest budget-balancing efforts. They need to fix it or justice might not just be delayed (even more); it might well be denied statewide.”
Also this week, Magnuson attended the MSBA Appellate Practice Council launch of its quarterly lunch series, designed to elevate the practice of the appellate bar and bring together appellate practitioners and appellate judges to discuss current appellate practice issues. Not only did he attend, he set the table when the caterers were late. “I’ve always been a hands-on kind of guy,” the chief joked modestly.
Showing posts with label Eric Magnuson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Magnuson. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Chief justice supports switch to retention elections for judges
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson came out today in support of the Quie Commission's recommendation that Minnesota switch to a retention system for electing judges. The announcement came during the chief justice's annual state-of-the-judiciary address at the Minnesota State Bar Association's annual meeting in Duluth.
In related news, the Judicial Council yesterday at the MSBA convention voted to set up a group to study the criteria and cost of performance evaluations for judges. Magnuson then said that the bench needs to actively educate the public about judicial elections. "We need to provide meaningful information to people who will be casting ballots," the chief justice said.
In related news, the Judicial Council yesterday at the MSBA convention voted to set up a group to study the criteria and cost of performance evaluations for judges. Magnuson then said that the bench needs to actively educate the public about judicial elections. "We need to provide meaningful information to people who will be casting ballots," the chief justice said.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
New chief to reveal position on judicial-election reform
State of the Judiciary addresses delivered by chief justices at the Minnesota State Bar Association's annual meeting are typically fairly vanilla affairs. The formula usually goes something like this:
-- Thanks for having me;
-- [insert joke and/or self-deprecating, yet heartwarming tale here];
-- Independence of the judiciary is important;
-- Court funding is inadequate;
-- Access to the justice system for poor people remains an issue;
-- Thanks again for having me --- and go do some pro bono!
However, with a new chief, this year promises to be different. At a meeting with Minnesota Lawyer earlier today at the Minnesota Judicial Center, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson said he plans to make a much-anticipated announcement -- his view of judicial-election reform efforts in Minnesota -- during his speech next Tuesday at the MSBA's annual convention in Duluth.
Magnuson's predecessor, Russell Anderson, advocated switching the state's judicial elections from a contested-election system to a retention-election system. The retention-election approach -- recommended by a special blue-ribbon citizens' commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie -- has the support of the MSBA. Proponents claim the change is needed to stop judicial races from becoming the big-money, nasty and highly politicized affairs they have grown into in some states. Opponents counter that retention elections are an elitist approach designed to keep judges from obtaining a seat on the bench via the ballot box.
So which camp is Magnuson in? The legal community has been wanting to know since his appointment was announced. We'll apparently get our answer Tuesday in Duluth. Meanwhile, the smart money is on Magnuson coming out in support of retention elections. What better place for the new chief to reveal that his view is in accord with the State Bar's than at the State Bar's annnual convention?
By the way, there's still time to sign up for the convention and see Magnuson make his revelation live and in person.
-- Thanks for having me;
-- [insert joke and/or self-deprecating, yet heartwarming tale here];
-- Independence of the judiciary is important;
-- Court funding is inadequate;
-- Access to the justice system for poor people remains an issue;
-- Thanks again for having me --- and go do some pro bono!
However, with a new chief, this year promises to be different. At a meeting with Minnesota Lawyer earlier today at the Minnesota Judicial Center, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson said he plans to make a much-anticipated announcement -- his view of judicial-election reform efforts in Minnesota -- during his speech next Tuesday at the MSBA's annual convention in Duluth.
Magnuson's predecessor, Russell Anderson, advocated switching the state's judicial elections from a contested-election system to a retention-election system. The retention-election approach -- recommended by a special blue-ribbon citizens' commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie -- has the support of the MSBA. Proponents claim the change is needed to stop judicial races from becoming the big-money, nasty and highly politicized affairs they have grown into in some states. Opponents counter that retention elections are an elitist approach designed to keep judges from obtaining a seat on the bench via the ballot box.
So which camp is Magnuson in? The legal community has been wanting to know since his appointment was announced. We'll apparently get our answer Tuesday in Duluth. Meanwhile, the smart money is on Magnuson coming out in support of retention elections. What better place for the new chief to reveal that his view is in accord with the State Bar's than at the State Bar's annnual convention?
By the way, there's still time to sign up for the convention and see Magnuson make his revelation live and in person.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Voted out, Holter's efforts to sit on cases brought to a halt
Our readers in the 9th Judicial District no doubt recall Judge Terrence Holter, one of handful of local judges who have actually managed to lose their seat in an election challenge. Holter was defeated in 2006 by his former law clerk, John Melbye.
Holter subsequently applied to (now former) Chief Justice Russell Anderson to sit on cases by designation as a “retired judge.” (As a means of dealing with resource issues, state law allows the chief justice to appoint retired judges to preside over individual cases.) Anderson, who knew Holter for many years as both a fellow Bemidji lawyer and a fellow 9th District judge, denied the request, concluding that such an appointment would be inappropriate under the circumstances. As was chronicled by City Pages last April, Holter was pretty upset at being spurned by the chief. (See "Judgment call: A former judge accuses retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Russell Anderson of playing politics.")
A Bemidji couple -- Nick and Patricia Gould -- sought assurances from the state high court that Holter would never get such an appointment. With a new chief coming in, they were worried that Holter’s request would fall on more receptive ears.
Fear not, was essentially the message they got from the high court shortly before Eric Magnuson was sworn in as the 21st chief justice.
“[T]he policy of chief justices has been not to appoint judges who have lost elections to serve as retired judges. Chief Justice-designate Magnuson has indicated he will follow the policy when he assumes office,” wrote Supreme Court Commissioner Richard Slowes in a letter dated May 28.
Nick Gould is happy with the response, but not 100 percent happy. “There ought to be a written policy stating that if you get voted out of office, you don’t get to sit on any more cases,” he said.
Holter subsequently applied to (now former) Chief Justice Russell Anderson to sit on cases by designation as a “retired judge.” (As a means of dealing with resource issues, state law allows the chief justice to appoint retired judges to preside over individual cases.) Anderson, who knew Holter for many years as both a fellow Bemidji lawyer and a fellow 9th District judge, denied the request, concluding that such an appointment would be inappropriate under the circumstances. As was chronicled by City Pages last April, Holter was pretty upset at being spurned by the chief. (See "Judgment call: A former judge accuses retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Russell Anderson of playing politics.")
A Bemidji couple -- Nick and Patricia Gould -- sought assurances from the state high court that Holter would never get such an appointment. With a new chief coming in, they were worried that Holter’s request would fall on more receptive ears.
Fear not, was essentially the message they got from the high court shortly before Eric Magnuson was sworn in as the 21st chief justice.
“[T]he policy of chief justices has been not to appoint judges who have lost elections to serve as retired judges. Chief Justice-designate Magnuson has indicated he will follow the policy when he assumes office,” wrote Supreme Court Commissioner Richard Slowes in a letter dated May 28.
Nick Gould is happy with the response, but not 100 percent happy. “There ought to be a written policy stating that if you get voted out of office, you don’t get to sit on any more cases,” he said.
Friday, May 23, 2008
New chief gets 'deep thoughts' from former chief
Incoming Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson made some insightful remarks at yesterday’s 89th annual Hennepin County Bar Association meeting. (Magnuson will assume the role of top jurist on June 1, when the current chief justice, Russell Anderson, retires.)
Magnuson spent some time discussing the importance of maintaining the independence of the state’s judiciary, as well as the budget shortfall that will affect the courts, attorneys and their clients.
On a less serious note, the incoming chief told a story about his friend and mentor, former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Doug Amdahl. He said that Amdahl was thrilled when he discovered that Magnuson was going to head the state’s highest court and stressed how much he was going to enjoy it.
Said Amdahl with enthusiasm: “It’s the greatest job in the world and you’ll love every minute of it! And when you’re done, you’ll say ‘Hell, I’ll never do that again!’”
It was a joke to be sure, but isn’t there a saying about “truth in jest?”
Undoubtedly, leading the state’s court system, even in prosperous times, is a tough job. So heading the judiciary now -- when money is in short supply and the state could be facing politically charged judicial elections later this year -- will surely be an immense challenge.
I, for one, feel confident that Magnuson is up for the job.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Magnuson's appointment could call selection process into question
It’s ironic that Minnesota’s outgoing Supreme Court justice, Russell Anderson, has been so outspoken about his fears that an open election process would politicize the process of choosing judges when one considers how the process of choosing his replacement contains the potential to suggest political expediency, if not outright cronyism.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty goes back years with new chief justice Eric Magnuson; the two practiced together at Rider Bennett, worked together on Pawlenty’s gubernatorial campaigns, and by most accounts are good friends. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with knowing the person you’re appointing to such a crucial position.
At the press conference to announce Magnuson’s appointment, Pawlenty, when asked about this issue, said, “Eric is intimately familiar with the court, so that doesn’t concern me.”
Fair enough. But what’s that old saying about even the appearance of impropriety being improper?
Unilaterally hoisting a longtime colleague with no experience on the bench directly to the high court’s top spot looks, at least to a lay observer, a little too convenient -- especially when the appointee was previously in charge of screening judicial candidates for the governor. Throw in the fact that Magnuson is Pawlenty’s fourth appointee to the high court, officially making it “his” court, and it’s hard to refrain from indulging in a bit of skepticism about the appointment process.
Magnuson’s credentials might be sound, but Minnesotans deserve some assurance that he was given the job based on his credentials alone, not his connections. It might be time for a formal screening process to accompany all high-level judicial appointments in Minnesota. Having the top candidates vetted by an independent commission -- even an ad hoc one for special cases like this -- would help lend some needed transparency to the process.
Magnuson comes across as remarkably informed and articulate on court-related topics. He’ll probably do a fine job. It’s too bad that the circumstances of his appointment seem perfectly aligned to invite scrutiny, deserved or otherwise.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty goes back years with new chief justice Eric Magnuson; the two practiced together at Rider Bennett, worked together on Pawlenty’s gubernatorial campaigns, and by most accounts are good friends. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with knowing the person you’re appointing to such a crucial position.
At the press conference to announce Magnuson’s appointment, Pawlenty, when asked about this issue, said, “Eric is intimately familiar with the court, so that doesn’t concern me.”
Fair enough. But what’s that old saying about even the appearance of impropriety being improper?
Unilaterally hoisting a longtime colleague with no experience on the bench directly to the high court’s top spot looks, at least to a lay observer, a little too convenient -- especially when the appointee was previously in charge of screening judicial candidates for the governor. Throw in the fact that Magnuson is Pawlenty’s fourth appointee to the high court, officially making it “his” court, and it’s hard to refrain from indulging in a bit of skepticism about the appointment process.
Magnuson’s credentials might be sound, but Minnesotans deserve some assurance that he was given the job based on his credentials alone, not his connections. It might be time for a formal screening process to accompany all high-level judicial appointments in Minnesota. Having the top candidates vetted by an independent commission -- even an ad hoc one for special cases like this -- would help lend some needed transparency to the process.
Magnuson comes across as remarkably informed and articulate on court-related topics. He’ll probably do a fine job. It’s too bad that the circumstances of his appointment seem perfectly aligned to invite scrutiny, deserved or otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
