It's hard to make a case for changing something that, so far, appears to be working well. That's the challenge that confronts leaders of Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, who today go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to begin this year's attempt to change the state Constitution's provisions governing the election of Minnesota judges.

Fortunately for them, the legal proceedings that someday may settle the Norm Coleman-Al Franken Senate race can help the amendment's advocates make their case.

Nearly every judge in Minnesota begins his or her tenure as an appointee of a governor. He or she then stands for election in the next general election occurring more than one year after the appointment, and every six years thereafter. To date, most of those elections have been uncontested, but an opponent is allowed. Political parties and PACs have usually stayed away, and candidates usually don't declare their positions or pledge their allegiance to interest groups.

For that reason, Minnesotans can have considerable confidence in the three judges who are hearing Coleman's election contest, as they did in the judges who served on the State Canvassing Board. To be sure, each of them was appointed by a partisan governor. But only via that indirect link can any of them be accused of partisan ties. None has sought or accepted party endorsement. None has solicited campaign contributions from a party's special-interest allies.

But the state rules that prohibited that kind of campaigning by judges were stripped away by the U.S. Supreme Court several years ago. Today, only the thin tissue of tradition keeps judges from becoming politicians. And if judges become politicians, the legitimacy of rulings in cases like the Coleman-Franken contest — and a whole lot more — will be undermined. Public respect for the courts, vital to the rule of law, would erode.

One of the first to see danger in the elimination of restrictions on judicial campaigning was the governor who 30 years ago instituted a merit-based judicial screening process within his office, Republican Gov. Al Quie. A citizens' commission he convened devised the proposal for constitutional change.

The idea: Eliminate contested judicial elections. Make them "retention" elections instead — yes-or-no referenda on a judge's continued service. Lengthen judges' terms from six to eight years. And create a special commission, appointed equally by the legislative, executive and judicial branch leadership, to evaluate and publicly report on the performance of judges before they stand for reelection.

Several states use such a system, and they report little problem with the big-money, special-interest involvement in judicial elections that has become commonplace in many states that permit contested elections. Special-interest groups exhibit little interest in simply unseating a judge when they cannot control who replaces him or her.

The amendment has been gaining support. This year, it picked up the backing of the State Bar Association. District judges remain cool to the idea, prompting some legislators to propose that the system begin with appellate judges only. But most appellate court judges start their careers on the district court bench. Better that political independence be secured at every level of the judicial branch.

Minnesotans for Impartial Courts knows that convincing voters to head off a potential problem is tougher than getting them to solve a problem that's upon them. That's why it's asking the Legislature to act this year to put the amendment on the 2010 ballot, giving it 18 months to make the case to the state's voters. Legislators who share Quie's sense of stewardship of the courts should grant his organization the gift of ample campaign time.

For more information, see www.impartialcourts.org.