Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


After trial, Michelle MacDonald vows to continue campaign for supreme court

Michelle MacDonald
Michelle MacDonald

A day after being found guilty of three traffic-related offenses in a Dakota County Courtroom, Michelle MacDonald, the Republican party’s endorsed (but not embraced) candidate for the state Supreme Court was back on the campaign trail. 

Thursday evening, MacDonald joined Congressional candidates Torrey Westrom and Stewart Mills and several other Republican candidates at an event. She was ignored by the other candidates at the program but greeted warmly by the Beltrami County crowd. 

Early in the week, MacDonald had been found not guilty of fourth degree driving while intoxicated but found guilty of obstruction of legal process, resisting arrest and refusal to take a breath test. Sentencing and a court-ordered psychological evaluation will not take place until after the election. MacDonald is opposing incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Lillehaug. 

MacDonald said she was asked by those in charge of Beltrami County event not to discuss “the problems’’ she’s having with the GOP. She said she opted not to speak  about the recently completed trial. “I spoke about justice,’’ said MacDonald. “I was uplifted by the response.’’ 

MacDonald plans to be on the dais at the Reagan Dinner in Duluth on Saturday night. “I’m not quitting,’’ she said.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Eric Ferguson on 09/19/2014 - 03:37 pm.

    Go Michelle Go!

    Please appear as often as possible with the other GOP candidates. When they try to sneak away, have Randy Gilbert block the door.

  2. Submitted by Wesley Volkenant on 09/19/2014 - 04:35 pm.

    Nice Tongued-in-Cheek Reply, Eric!

    It WAS in jest, right?

    Seriously, there does seem to be some mental health concerns here, right?

    Certainly a considerable degree of denial, but to me, of more concern, it feels like some serious attitude of “being owed” this as if this is deserved not earned, so quit putting these nuisance attacks in front of our end result of getting on that Court, and fixing those immoral, anti- Christian interpretations of the Bible, err, the State Constitution.

  3. Submitted by Meg Watson on 09/19/2014 - 06:39 pm.

    How’s that for a campaign slogan?

    “Sentencing and a court-ordered psychological evaluation will not take place until after the election”.

    Kind of boils the whole story of the last several months down into one pithy sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the “candidate”.

  4. Submitted by William Pappas on 09/20/2014 - 07:14 am.

    Republican judicial activism

    It’s important to remember that electing rabidly partison and radical philosophically conservative judges is one of the three legs of the stool upon which republican majorities are held. The other two are gerrymandering and voter suppession or corporate media control. A judge worthy of conservative consideration must show a willingness to disregard facts, settled law and precedent while actively working to make new law friendly to conservative causes and especially advantageous to wealth and privlage. Unfortunately, those very political judges by their nature and the process of republican approval is corrupting all by itself. Campaigning judges and the conservative willingness to make those campaigns subject to outside cash has had a chilling effect on our democracy. Aside from Michelle’s personal troubles, her political views and willingness to impose them on the rest of us through the judicial process is repugnant.

  5. Submitted by E Gamauf on 09/21/2014 - 10:53 pm.

    The dais at that dinner should be unsettling

    Its tough to make a case that she makes good decisions:
    She hasn’t made the best decisions lately, risking getting caught violating her restriction while in the limelight & certainly terrible decisions for a supreme court judgeship.

    She has a right to unencumbered justice though.
    A psych eval ordered by the court?

    1) Do they do that often?
    2) On what basis?
    3) Is this overstepping?

    The psych eval: It might be reasonably warranted, or a condition of plea, but I have to wonder aloud.

    I don’t know much about the woman & will not vote for her, for several reasons. She is an unknown with several question marks.

    Can’t somebody legally demand a blood test at a medical facility in place of the breathalyzer?
    Nobody seemed to know the answer last time I asked this question in a post.

    (Edited a 2nd time to stay on topic)

    • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 09/22/2014 - 02:48 pm.

      Blood test

      I think I gave you half an answer last time. The cops do not have to give you a blood test if you ask for one. The choice of test is theirs.

      You will see chemical dependency evaluations ordered, but I don’t think psych evaluations are too common for DUIs. I expect that her behavior during the arrest and at trial gave the judge reason to think that she has some psychological issues.

      I appreciate and share your concern for due process, but despite McDonald’s protests, she was not treated unfairly. This is someone who, maybe because she is a lawyer, thinks she is above the law.

  6. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 09/20/2014 - 02:39 pm.


    My wife asked “what is it with the GOP and women named Michelle.”

    You go, girl! And take those tacky shoes with you.

Leave a Reply