All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court following the death last week of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with tension over who will replace her and how that will play into the race for the presidency.
[image_caption]Justice Paul Thissen[/image_caption]
A sitting Minnesota Supreme Court justice hasn’t lost a judicial election since the 1940s, a history that would suggest Thissen would have very little to worry about in the upcoming contest. But Thissen is waging an unusually active campaign for an incumbent. His campaign committee has raised more than $128,000 this year, and has taken out digital, radio and billboard ads in the pursuit of retaining the seat.
The incumbent
Thissen is an attorney who long represented Minneapolis as a DFLer in the Minnesota House of Representatives. First elected in 2002, he eventually became Speaker of the House, serving in that role from 2013 to 2015. He made an unsuccessful bid for governor in 2010, dropping out before the primary, and announced a run for governor in 2018 before withdrawing in February of that year. Two months later, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Mark Dayton.
Thissen told MinnPost he is now seeking re-election to the court because he enjoys the job. “The things we look at are things I care about: protecting individual rights, holding the powerful, holding government accountable, making sure we have a system of laws that preserves our democracy,” he said.
He said he sees access to justice, institutional racism and gender inequities as issues that still exist in the court system and as ones that need work. As part of his campaign, Thissen has produced a series of ads on Facebook that discuss how Minnesota Supreme Court cases have affected groups of Minnesotans, such as students, and promote access to lawyers for tenants and Minnesotans sued by debt collectors.
He characterized the Minnesota Supreme Court as a non-ideological one, pointing out that despite having appointees from both DFL and Republican governors, it comes to unanimous decisions about 80 percent of the time. (For more information, you can read Thissen’s Minnesota State Bar Association questionnaire.)
The challenger
MacDonald has been a lawyer since 1987, and her private practice focuses on family law. She has also worked as a Hennepin County small claims court judge and a civil and family court referee/arbitrator.
MacDonald first ran for the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2014 against Justice David Lillehaug, winning 47 percent of the votes to Lillehaug’s 53 percent. In 2016, she challenged Justice Natalie Hudson, winning 41 percent of the vote to Hudson’s 59 percent. In 2018, she ran against Justice Margaret Chutich, winning 44 percent of the vote to Chutich’s 56 percent.
[image_caption]Michelle MacDonald[/image_caption]
In 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended MacDonald’s license for 60 days and put her on supervised probation for two years based on a referee’s recommendation, stemming from her representation of Grazzini-Rucki, including making unsubstantiated claims about a judge’s integrity and impartiality. (The referee also recommended a mental health evaluation, which the court declined to impose.)
In March, the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which oversees attorney licensing in Minnesota, filed a petition seeking sanctions against MacDonald based on allegations including repeating prior misconduct in making “knowingly false” comments about a judge, and filing what it called a “factually frivolous” defamation lawsuit against Michael Brodkorb, a former political operative who writes about the Grazzini-Rucki case, and his co-author. Earlier this month, MacDonald appeared in a hearing on the matter in front of a Supreme Court referee, who has until Oct. 20 to make a recommendation to the court, according to Minnesota Lawyer.
MacDonald told MinnPost her conduct, including filing a lawsuit against a judge, was in pursuit of civil rights for families. “Basically, my premise was to one degree or another, judges and courts are depriving us of our liberties with our children and our property,” she said.
MacDonald described herself as an originalist — someone who believes in interpreting the Constitution as it was written.
“The Constitution didn’t get invented to give us rights — oh let’s look at the Constitution, see what rights we have,” she said. “The Constitution actually was created to preserve our rights that we already have, fundamentally by being born on this earth.”
But she said she’s running because she wants to see reform of the judicial system. “We need to implement some restorative justice circles in the system, make it a more restorative system rather than a retributive system,” she said. (For more information, you can read MacDonald’s Minnesota State Bar questionnaire.)
Low-information races
When there’s a vacancy on the Minnesota Supreme Court during the elected term, either because of a death, retirement, resignation or because a judge has turned 70, the mandatory retirement age, the governor appoints a judge to fill the post. Minnesota governors have a longstanding tradition of appointing judges who have been approved by the state’s Commission on Judicial Selection, a panel of both attorneys and non-attorneys throughout the state who vet candidates for judicial openings.
In Minnesota, judges face statewide re-election after appointment by the governor, then face election every six years after that, presenting the opportunity for challengers to run.
Despite the fact that judges face election in Minnesota, campaigning to be a judge in Minnesota is not like campaigning for other elected offices in the state. One of the reasons is because the races aren’t partisan, so voters can’t rely on party affiliation to make decisions about the candidates (the only label on the ballot says “incumbent” next to the candidate running to keep his or her seat).
Another reason is the nature of the job: The state’s judicial code of conduct outlines the line judges are expected to walk between campaigning and taking positions on issues: “Even when subject to public election, a judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official,” the code reads. “Rather than making decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. Therefore, in furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure.”
Among other campaign restrictions, judges are prohibited from explicitly requesting donations from audiences of fewer than 20 people — something Steven Aggergaard, an attorney and visiting professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said makes campaigning for the office fundamentally different from campaigning for other elected offices.
“It’s the appearance of impropriety that really is the justification for these canons,” he said. For example, a direct solicitation of a campaign contribution by a judicial candidate to someone with a matter before the court or a matter that eventually comes before the court could be seen as a conflict of interest. Judges often talk about the institution of courts and their judicial philosophy in campaigns, but are discouraged from taking positions on issues that could come up in court.
The campaigns
Despite those restrictions, candidates can — and do — wage active campaigns for seats on the bench. And despite 80 years of history that suggests an incumbent advantage, Thissen’s campaign is going all out.
[image_caption]Ballot detail[/image_caption]
That’s double what Justice Margaret Chutich’s committee had raised at that point in her re-election bid against MacDonald in 2018, and more than three times what Justice Natalie Hudson raised in 2016 when she faced MacDonald.
Thissen’s committee isn’t just raising money, it’s spending it: $153,000 in total campaign expenditures, including $63,000 on a digital marketing firm, $18,000 on billboards, $17,000 on radio ads, $25,000 on fundraising staff and $7,500 on a campaign manager.
MacDonald’s committee, meanwhile, started the year with $3,900 in the bank, according to campaign finance records, and raised an additional $610 since. Her campaign has spent $1,171 on campaign expenditures, including $700 on masks, $328 on printed campaign materials and $143 on “website issues.”
Thissen told MinnPost he’s campaigning hard because he thinks judges can do a better job of being transparent about the work courts do, and said he sees his campaign as a way to do that.
But also said he’s also taking the challenge from MacDonald seriously. After running multiple times, she has some name recognition and has captured significant shares of the vote in previous elections, he said. “We have a serious opponent … this is her fourth run for the office.”
I really really dislike the idea of us voting for judges…any judges. We have no knowledge about whether they are a good or bad judges…unless they are extremely bad…and even then we might not know.
In most cases I would wholeheartedly agree, but this is the rare exception. Both candidates have public records of their actions and decisions that can inform any voter willing to do the slight bit of research.
All the other judges on my ballot were running unopposed, BTW.
When any candidate regardless of qualifications or disrepute can get at least 40% of the vote for Supreme Court (or president) it is probably a smart idea not to take anything for granted.
Voters should make sure to vote for Thissen: He’s the only judge up for re-election who has any opponent at all, and he has this perpetual runner/loser opposing him. There’s no contest, but make sure you fill n that one judicial circle for Thissen. Just in case!
Thissen is a left wing activist. He tried hard to get certain guns banned. He doesn’t belong on the bench because he can’t be apolitical.
His opponent maybe a nut but he still doesn’t belong on the bench.
You seem to be saying he doesn’t belong on the bench because he doesn’t love guns. That’s absurd.
Your Comments have no basis in logic or sound public health policy.
Thank you for your report on this important race. Often overshadowed by partisan races, judicial elections are critical to ensure that all parties in Minnesota’s courts receive fair and impartial justice.
Justice Paul Thissen is an intelligent and thoughtful justice, committed to the rule of law and everyone’s access to justice. He has good experience as a practicing lawyer and a unique perspective as a former legislator. He is highly qualified and deserves election to a six year term.
There are four other contested judicial races in Minnesota this year – in the Second Judicial District (Ramsey County), First Judicial District (Carver, Dakota, Goodhue, Le Sueur, McLeod, Scott, and Sibley Counties), and Ninth Judicial District (northwestern Minnesota). I encourage voters in those areas to check the websites of the incumbent judges and their challengers so voters can make an informed choice in those elections.
this woman has been inquired into, vetted, refuted, and virtually run out of town (aka the Law) on numerous occasions. she is a certifiable nutbag recluse. that this reporting is occurring on MinnPost’s watch is questionable.
Thissen may be running an active campaign, but this is the first it’s been on my radar.
More importantly, how on God’s green earth does this woman get even 4% of the vote, much less 40% or more??? Have conservative voters lost their minds?
I’m afraid so.
Well, yes, of course Republican voters have lost their minds – for example, you may note that George W. Bush, and subsequently Donald Trump, each received more than 4% of the vote.
But I don’t expect that’s the cause here. Judges are not identified by party on ballots. I expect very few folks have any knowledge of the candidates or sense of judicial qualifications, and so just check a box based on some random motivation. Indeed I expect some number of Democratic voters will vote for MacDonald because she’s a woman. So by almost-random selection, if there are two candidates, even the unqualified one will get maybe 40% of the vote.
My own view is that if you don’t inform yourself enough about the candidates to be able to articulate how your choice is the better one for the public welfare, you shouldn’t vote. This tends to apply doubly to judicial elections. Like Mr. Nelson above, I’m quite opposed to electing judges; I think they should be appointed/reappointed, thru a process that excludes ideological charlatans from the list of candidates (this last clause, of course, has become necessary only since the Republican party disavowed democracy in favor of will to power).
I honestly tried to read and understand what you wrote. I am sorry, but George Soros and crazy anti- Semitic conspiracies of some ultra conservatives have nothing to do with this Supreme Court race. Your candidate lost her license for cause. There is a thing called judicial temperament that she lacks. The Minnesota Supreme Court has a non-partisan feeling with mutual respect whatever Governor made the appointment.
Interesting, isn’t it, that most of the 128 grand raised by Thissen comes from lawyers and law firms’ political funds. You reckon that the lawyers are in effect “buying” a bit of goodwill with Mr. Justice Thissen? . . .
An interview with Michelle MacDonald two years ago:
https://youtu.be/2zil9XDbNX8
Those lawyers are not looking for favors. They are looking for smart, competent judges on the Supreme Court. They are looking to avoid judges who are unfit for office. They want to avoid judges who have had their law licenses suspended and who are facing ethics investigations.
This is about qualifications and character, not favors. Thissen is a very well qualified judge.
Sure it is Pat. Nonsense they’re buying influence. Thissen has a long record of being a left wing activist even in the legislature. He’s incapable of being non partisan. Just more influence buying is all this is.
That is simply false. Thissen was a partisan when he was in the legislature, because that was his job. As a judge, he has been very non-partisan. Minnesota has a long tradition of non-partisan judges, appointed by both Democrats and Republicans (and Ventura). The small amounts of money being donated by law firms isn’t going to buy any influence.
This is about competence. A smart, experienced well-respected judge against someone who can’t maintain a valid law license. These firms want a competent judiciary.
Judge Thissen’s own political views, of course, sit well within the mainstream of American values. But more to the point of Mr. Barnes’ objection, those on the Right, being authoritarians and not democrats, don’t understand the use of power for anything other than pursuit of ideological or other personal advantage. They aren’t able to grasp the notion of setting one’s own mean interests aside to serve in a representative institutional capacity.
Video has been removed.
I am not sure what a “constitutionalist” judge is, but McDonald is someone who seems to have a very poor grasp of the actually constitution.
“Originalism” is largely sophistry. While we do have some writings to provide clues, most lawyers – and most judges – have no idea what the founders were thinking when they wrote the Constitution’s details. The argument that “originalists” are using – that they somehow magically know what the founders intended when the Constitution was written – is simply nonsense. They don’t know what the founders “intended” any more than you or I do, but instead impose their own ideology on whatever case is in front of them. Should she be confirmed, as I expect she will be, Amy Barrett will provide us with numerous examples in coming years of the occasional silliness, and danger, of pretending to know what someone who’s been dead for two centuries, and lived in a completely different society while alive, might have intended.
Well said, Ray.
On judicial races in Minnesota though, I wonder why the only offices for election that list the “incumbent” candidate are judicial offices? Why not others? Especially since most judicial elections are uncontested.
Not even remotely true. Read the Federalist papers and the AntiFederalist papers. We have all kinds of data on what the Framers thought and their explanations. Thissen is a lifelong Democrat and his rulings show his political bias.
He’s an activist and has no business being on the bench.
We have all kinds of “data” as to what a select group of men called “the Founders” thought. We have no reason to pretend that “data” shows any kind of consensus or unifying theory beyond the basic premise of adopting a Constitution.
Michelle MacDonald is an activist in her own way.
No, Ray is 100 percent right. If you read actual legal decisions where originalism is purportedly applied, you would know how absurd it is. Originalism sounds great in an academic setting, but people who actually practice know what a joke it is in the real world. The “data” that existed 200 years ago is worthless in most cases today.
Thissen isn’t even remotely close to being an activist judge. He has, however – unlike his opponent – been able to maintain a valid law license.
You mean we don’t have good data on what the Founders thought of Medicare???
I grew up in a state where the judges were purely appointed. In effect they were all picked by the state Chamber of Commerce and related interests. That system sucks.
Minnesota’s hybrid appointment/election system is imperfect, but on balance seems better.
I’m sure he is a nice guy and a decent judge. I will check the one comment that he tried to ban any type of firearm. And BTW, that’s lots different than “not liking guns”. My wife doesn’t like guns but she doesn’t make me get rid of them.
Interesting how he was appointed. Was going to run for governor against Dayton. Drops out then a short time later appointed to SC. Quid pro quo? Sure looks like.
But I’m sure the left thinks that’s fine.
let’s not forget that Minnesota is the state that elected to it’s Supreme Court a lawyer with zero experience in law, his main qualification being a football player