Given the comments from others about the judicial races, I thought I would
send in my plans for voting on them tomorrow, and why.
Note: I'm writing this on my own initiative, independent of all of the
campaign committees of all of these judges, and not as a director or
officer of any organization or political party. These are just my
personal (non-lawyer) opinions on the judicial races, based on what I know
and have heard from others about them.
Of the many judicial races, there are 7 contested ones. Here is how I will
be voting in them.
Herbert Lefler (incumbent) vs. Liz Pierce - definately challenger Liz
Pierce!
Harry Crump (incumbent) vs. Kevin Kolosky - easy choice - re-elect Crump.
Lloyd Zimmerman (incumbent) vs. Julie Delgado O'Neill - both good, I'll
vote for Zimmerman.
Thomas Wexler (incumbent) vs. Jill Clark - I'm going with challenger Jill
Clark.
Steven Aldrich (incumbent) vs. Judd E. Gushwa - I'll vote to re-elect
Steve Aldrich.
Tanya Bransford (incumbent) vs. Joseph McCormick - I'll vote to re-elect
Tanya Bransford.
James Swenson (incumbent) vs. Robert D. Schwartz - I guess re-elect James
Swenson.
My reasoning:
Herbert Lefler (incumbent) vs. Liz Pierce - definately challenger Liz
Pierce!
This is one I feel strongly about. In my opinion, Lefler is a very poor
judge. In his courtroom, he seems to decide cases more on the wealth &
power of the parties, and the prominence of the lawyer they've hired, than
on concern for the well-being of the children involved. He has ignored the
recommendations of the experts from the child welfare agencies, and placed
children back in unhealthy situations. Several of these have had poor
results (once even fatal) for the child.
Liz Pierce seems to me to be an outstanding lawyer, and the kind we need
on the bench. I like her record of community service, with Meals on
Wheels, Habitat for Humanity, Chrysalis Women's Center, Rainbow Families,
the Sierra Club, OutFront Minnesota, and Prospect Park Neighborhood
Assn. She is also a foster parent & court guardian for children. When I
spoke to her, I was very impressed by the depth of her feelings about
children and what is best for them, and how that must be the prime concern
in this court. And also by her extensive knowledge and articulate speaking
about these issues. I think she'll make a wonderful judge, and I will be
voting for her on Tuesday. (I even put up a lawn sign for her, the first
time I've ever done so for a judicial race.)
Harry Crump (incumbent) vs. Kevin Kolosky - easy choice - re-elect Crump.
Perennial judicial candidate Kolosky hasn't shown any more reason to elect
him this time than he did in all his previous unsuccessful campaigns. And
Harry Crump is a good Judge. He seems to base his decisions on
down-to-earth common sense (which isn't all that common around the
courthouse!) His decision on the Minn Twins case was an example of that:
you signed the contract, you must abide by it.
Lloyd Zimmerman (incumbent) vs. Julie Delgado O'Neill - both good, I'll
vote for Zimmerman.
This one seems almost a tie to me, but I think Lloyd Zimmerman is a good
judge, so I'll vote to keep him on the bench. If O'Neill were running
against some less qualified, I would certainly vote for her at that time.
Most people I know think of Judge Zimmerman as a very highly qualified
judge, and very good on the bench. His experience with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has made him sensitive to discrimination,
and people say he is very fair to both sides in his courtroom. His
challenger, Julie O'Neill seems qualified also, and sounds like she would
make a very good judge. I hope she'll run again, a judge who really needs
to be replaced (there are several).
Thomas Wexler (incumbent) vs. Jill Clark - I'm going with challenger Jill
Clark.
Much of the debate on this seems to be about some remarks of Judge Wexler
which people regard as indicative of racial bias. From the record, they
could be taken either way; I would have had to have been there to decide
for sure. But I'd think a Judge should be careful enough of his language
to avoid making such remarks. I'm also concerned about the history of
issues with Judge Wexler: complaints were filed against him with the
Judicial Standards Board in 1991 & 1993 (and upheld, I believe), and (back
when they released these publicly), the bar association rating by lawyers
rated him very low. To me these begin to mount up as evidence of a poor
judge. Meanwhile, Jill Clark shows an effective background & experience,
and seems to represent a viewpoint we need on the bench. I'm voting for her.
Steven Aldrich (incumbent) vs. Judd Edward Gushwa - I'll vote to re-elect
Steve Aldrich.
I know Steve Aldrich personally. He used to live in this neighborhood,
and was active in community affairs. I didn't always agree with him, but
he was always willing to listen to other viewpoints and consider them. And
that seems to me to describe what the job of a judge is. He has become an
expert, active judge in family court. Also, I don't like the heavy
law-and-order emphasis of the opponent, with his apparent unquestioning
police bias. And that his campaign seems largely in response to a single
decision by Judge Aldrich with which he disagrees (Highway 55 arrests).
I know Steve Aldrich has hearing problems (which his courtroom has been
wired to compensate for), but I think he is better able to hear the people
in his courtroom than his opponent, with his open ears but closed mindset.
Tanya Bransford (incumbent) vs. Joseph McCormick - I'll vote to re-elect
Tanya Bransford.
Everybody I know who has dealt with her describes Judge Bransford as a
good judge; respectful & considerate in her treatment of people in her
courtroom, and thoughtful & conscientious in her legal rulings. The only
reason anyone gave me for voting against her was that she was "an uppity
black woman" -- to me, that sounds like a good reason to keep her on the
bench!
James Swenson (incumbent) vs. Robert D. Schwartz - I guess re-elect James
Swenson.
This is the one I know the least about, but lawyer friends of mine
classify Judge Swenson as OK. Apparently he has better legal skills than
people skills, but that's not unheard of in judges (or lawyers). He is
known for getting things done promptly, and expecting the same of lawyers
appearing before him. That's fine with me; I wish it was more common in
courtrooms. I haven't heard any good reason to replace him, so I'll be
voting to re-elect him.
Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson
_______________________________________
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
