Here is another practicing attorney's view on the judicial races (in addition to the Zimmerman-O'Neill race addressed in the earlier post).
Judge Thomas Wexler v. Jill Clark I do not know Jill Clark personally but am definitely impressed with what I have read and heard about her legal and community work. She appears to be one of a very small group of the huge oversupply of attorneys who can be descirbed as a "civil rights lawyer." I am quite familiar with Judge Wexler from appearing in front of him for trials, hearings and other court appearances. He has not demonstrated any of the bias in front of me that apparently underlies Jill Clark's decision to challenge him. In fact, I tried a misdemeanor case where my client was a Native American woman who had an altercation with white police officers. I think the evidence ultimately made it clear that the cops were charging her with a crime in order to cover up their brutality. (The jury agreed). Overall, i would have to say that Judge Wexler gave us a fair trial. I do think that Judge Wexler has some personal quirks, such as rigidity and compulsiveness that can cause discomfort for those involved in his court. He is very conscientious and intense in his decision making, and usually considers and addresses every argument. I believe this is very postive in a court system where most people, expecially the disenfranchised feel railroaded, but might also lead to hard feelings when Wexler responds negatively. In my observation, he is definitely sensitive and concerned about civil rights and discrimination issues, but does not have (or at least apply) a systemic critique of the discriminatory and oppressive role of the police and judicial system like some of us civil rights lawyers. He originally became judge by defeating an incumbent, James Rogers, who was notorious for violating people's rights. Jill Clark does have a couple of other quotes on her website which suggest racial bias. www.jillclarkforjudge.org However, one of the quotes was apparently alleged by someone suing Wexler and there is no information to help determine its accuracy. The second quote seems highly disturbing at first grant, but after reading a description of its context in Jill Clark's footnote, I find that I need more information to determine whether there were some unusual circumstances that make it more understandable. Although I think I have a similar orientation to Jill Clark, I can find at least seven judges running unopposed for reelection that are more problematic than Judge Wexler. (There are 27 judicial races in Hennepin County next week; in 20 of the races, the incumbents are unopposed.) ------------------------------- Judge Stephen Aldrich v. Judd Gushwa I am well-acquainted with both candidates. I have appeared before Judge Aldrich several times, including for an extensive hearing, and defended clients whee Judd Gushwa was the prosecutor and also spoken to him. Judge Aldrich is definitely very intelligent and conscientious. I also find him to be humorous and witty. Judge Aldrich appears to have a complex set of ethical principles that he brings to the bench, accompanied by a common sense and creative approach. He does sometimes make a point of being a maverick and will make controversial decisions. I think this is important, but suspect it is a big part of the reason why he is being challenged. The challenger, Judd Gushwa, has been a city prosecutor for several years (5-10), and was previously a Minneapolis police officer for several years. Judd's police and prosecution background definitely informs his views which I would characterize as "law and order." To Judd's credit, he does have positive qualities that are relevant to the Judge position. He is friendly and affable, and open-minded. Since it is clear that I have an almost opposite perspective on the criminal justice system (and most other issues), this has made Judd eager to discuss and debate me whenever we run into each other. My experience is that he is reasonable when negotiating resolutions to cases, and while he makes clear his contempt for "law-breaker", he does not insist on locking everyone up and throwing away the key. I did ask Judd why he decided to challenge Judge Aldrich since I believe he is a capable Judge. Judd explained his experience that Judge Aldrich did not follow the law, and alleged that Judge Aldrich has made inappropriate comments to assistant city attorneys. I have not yet seen any specifics. I believe that Judd is less qualified than Judge Aldrich. His legal experience is far more narrow. Despite Judd's personal appeal, I am particularly concerned about a judge who so closely and exclusively identifies with the police and that limited perspective. (Judd is not coincidentally the only challenger endorsed by the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation). ------------------------------------ Judge Seymour Crump v. Kevin Kolosky This is a slam dunk. Kevin Kolosky has run for a judgeship in every election since 1994 (right after he became an attorney). I have heard that he waits in the county elections office until the last minute and then randomly chooses an opponent. He has never, to my knowledge, ever articulated a serious reason for any of his challenges. While I am a believer in judicial elections to enforce some sort of accountability, this argument is undermined by someone like Kolosky who treats the process like a game. Judges have powerful jobs that can have profound effects on people's lives. I am very familiar with Judge Crump. He has one of the most affable and easygoing personalities. Judge Crump is not the most scholarly jurist, but does apply a common sense approach which seems to work very well becuase of his extensive experience, and understanding of people in general and the dynamics of the judicial system. His decision in the Twins case is a great example. I have heard that Judge Crump is often too prosecution-oriented in serious criminal cases, but he has been fair in my cases. ----------------------------------- Judge Herbert Lefler v. Liz Pierce I do not know Liz Pierce. I have appeared extensively in front of Judge Lefler, and have no significant complaints. He is easygoing, respectful of the attorneys and parties, and listens to all sides. Judge Lefler is another judge that seems to emphasize a common sense approach to decision making. I would be interested in hearing more about Liz Pierce and why she is challenging Judge Lefler. -------------------------------- Judge Tanya Bransford v. Pat McCormick I am familiar with Judge Bransford, and know nothing about Pat McCormick. However, I have no idea why anyone would challenge Judge Bransford. She is highly capable both intellectually and in understanding and relating to people. It is curious while six out of twenty-seven judges are being challenged, two of them are among the fewAfrican American judges (Judges Bransford and Crump). Judge Bransford is particularly conscious and active in dealing with the extremely problematic issues of racial bias in the justice system, and is effective at doing so because of her affable personality. -------------------------- Judge James Swenson v. Robert Schwartz I have appeared in front of James Swenson, who does exclusively family law, for one divorce trial. Although he is brash and I did not get a positive result, in hindsight I cannot substantively fault his handling of the case or his reasoning. He has a no-nonsense and common sense approach to expediting and deciding cases which is important in divorce cases which can unnecessarily consume family's lives. I do not know Robert Schwartz. Based on what I have read, I cannot see a good basis for the challenge. ----------------------------- It feels strange and uncharacterstic that I have spoken positively of all the incumbent officeholders. There are some other judges that I would like to see challenged. Maybe in the future. Jordan Kushner Golden Valley _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
