Minnesota Lawyer Blog

As some of you have noticed, immediately after the filling period closed, the field went down from seven to six in the race for the open Hennepin County judicial seat. Why? One of the candidates -- Minneapolis attorney Nick Slade -- withdrew his name. (And, by the way, what a great-sounding name it is -- right out of a dime-store detective novel or 1940s film noir.)

Shortly after his decision to flee the crowded field, I called Slade and left a voicemail message for him seeking his reasons. The call went unreturned, which is why I didn't post anything about it here. But, since some of you appear to still be curious and since an anonymous commenter provided me a link, click here to see what Slade has to say on his campaign website on his decision. The crux of it is that a lot of people are running and, with his legal work, he doesn't feel he can put in the time and effort necessary to prevail.

It's not unusual for at least one candidate to withdraw his or her name immediately after the judicial-election filing period. (In fact, there is a brief withdrawal period after filings close that allows candidates to do exactly this.) This year, it was Slade who pulled out, leaving an even half dozen lawyers to run for the seat of retiring Judge Thomas Wexler. The good news? With six you get eggroll.

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Lorie Gildea is in one of the more interesting horse races of this judicial-election season. Luckily for her, Gildea -- shown here in period costume for the Sesquicentennial -- is something of an equestrian, so that may gave her an advantage in taking the reins and dispelling the naysayers. OK, OK, I can hear your groans, but we had the photo, so I couldn't resist.

In all seriousness, Gildea is involved in one of the most interesting races -- with a field of opponents composed of a sitting District Court judge (Deborah Hedlund), a longtime public defender (Rick Gallo) and Jill Clark, a Minneapolis attorney with a reputation for being "combative" and "feisty" (the Strib's words, not mine). Some may recall in 2002, when Clark challenged Judge Thomas Wexler, the race got a little testy at points. I wouldn't expect Hedlund to be any shrinking violet either. In fact, Hedlund has already seemed to adopt a campaign theme that could potentially cause some friction -- her nearly three decades of trial court bench experience compared to the 2 1/2 months Gildea served in the Hennepin County District Court before being elevated to the high court. (You can, of course, argue the point of whether or not that trial court experience is superior to spending that time engaged in the practice of law, and, no doubt, Gildea will.) The third candidate, Gallo, has the advantage of having spent more than two decades as a public defender, currently working in (appropriately enough) the appellate division. However, he has said he does not plan to raise any funds for his campaign, so I imagine it will be pretty tough for him to get the word out. I would look for him to call attention to the crisis in the public-defense system created by the most recent round of state budget cuts.

There is a very disturbing judicial campaign going on in the bucolic landscape of the First Judicial District. Dakota County Judge Joe Carter, pictured at right, is being challenged by Rice County prosecutor Nathaniel Reitz, who appears to be basing his campaign on the tragic case of Justin P. Farnsworth, who sexually assaulted a 9-year-old girl in his custody. Farnsworth had a 10-year old rape conviction but was described by officials as a “success story.” Carter, following the advice of experienced court-appointed custody evaluator David Jaehne, awarded custody of the child to Farnsworth with the consent of her mother, who evidently didn’t want her.

Reitz has adopted the dubious campaign tactic of linking from his Web site to a Google page of links to blog postings vilifying Carter. If you read all the way to the end of the muck, you get one link to an AP news story. That story raises the issue of whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for the child. It also pointed out that the case is one of many tragedies in the child-protection system.

Reitz’s bio says that he is a prosecutor who takes rape cases seriously, which no doubt is true. It doesn’t say that he is a volunteer guardian ad litem or serves any policy-making function with respect to the child protection system. Minnesota’s child protection system recently failed a federal audit, at least in part because the state is unwilling to devote the resources needed to keep up with cases in a timely manner. In the Farnsworth custody case, there were no allegations of abuse to require the appointment of a guardian ad litem and apparently no family or community members taking an interest. There were likely no funds available to pay a guardian ad litem and it’s a tremendous amount of work to ask a volunteer to contribute.

The state made its policy preferences even more clear this spring when it cut public-defender funding, which resulted in the defenders ceasing to represent parents in CHIPS cases. Since the defenders have previously said that they can’t manage criminal defense and CHIPS cases, their move came as no surprise. The absence of public defenders puts a huge strain on the child- protection system. Reitz would do better to think of some solutions to that problem rather than focus his campaign on crazy blog postings. He says the election is about judgment -- it's time to use some.