A few things Minnesotans should know about judicial races

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota voters play an important role in ensuring that we retain a qualified and fair judiciary. This year, contests for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court will be on the ballot. In these races, there are clear differences between incumbent judges and their challengers, and voters should cast an informed vote.

When a judge retires or resigns midterm, the Minnesota Constitution requires the governor to select a successor. Candidates are carefully vetted by a commission composed of attorneys and non-attorney community members and interviewed by the governor. A judge must run in the next general election more than one year after appointment. Judicial elections are nonpartisan, and most candidates do not identify as Democrat or Republican (or other).

As a trial lawyer and former chair of the Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection, I have found that, when parties go to court, often in a difficult and important time of life, they want a judge who is experienced and who will listen and apply the law fairly.

Several of this year’s judicial contests present clear choices between experienced incumbent judges and attorney challengers with far less courtroom experience. I’ll offer three examples.

First, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson started her career in 1982 at Legal Services, representing indigent clients in housing matters. She worked as a litigation attorney in private practice, as the St. Paul City Attorney and as criminal appellate counsel in the Attorney General’s Office. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2002, the Supreme Court in 2015, and as chief justice in 2023. She has been elected to her judicial positions statewide four times.

Second, Court of Appeals Judge Diane Bratvold spent 26 years as a trial and appellate lawyer in private practice, where she argued numerous appeals in state and federal courts. She was appointed to the Hennepin County District Court in 2014, to the Court of Appeals in 2016 and was elected statewide in 2018. On the Court of Appeals, she has written more than 400 opinions and decided more than 1,200 appeals.

Her challenger Jonathan Woolsey has mostly worked as a contract attorney for several agencies and as “eDiscovery Client Manager” for Thomson Reuters. In March 2023, he began work as Corporate Counsel for InfoSync, an accounting, payroll and reporting services provider. A search of Minnesota Court Records Online indicates he has not appeared in any cases as counsel.

Third, Ramsey County Judge Timothy Mulrooney worked as a prosecutor for five years, then in private practice for eight years as a family law lawyer. He heard family law cases as a referee for eight years before he was appointed Ramsey County judge in 2016. Voters elected him to a six-year term in 2018.

Mulrooney’s challenger Winona Yang was admitted to the bar less than three years ago. She has worked as an assistant for a Ramsey County commissioner. According to Minnesota Court Records Online, she has never appeared in a court case for a client as an admitted attorney.

The experienced incumbent judges in these races have strong support among practicing lawyers. In a State Bar Association poll of its members — lawyers from diverse backgrounds and practice areas who see judges day-to-day — Justice Hudson, Judge Bratvold and Judge Mulrooney each received support from over 90% of the voting members.

I encourage Minnesotans to cast an informed vote on judicial candidates this year. Experience counts. Information about the candidates is available on their websites, on the State Bar Association website — mnjudges.org, and in newspaper voter guides.