Readers Write: Judicial races, support for Trump in rural areas

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

We are retired judges and practicing Ramsey County attorneys writing to provide our very strong endorsement for the re-election of Judge Tim Mulrooney to the Ramsey County District Court bench.

We do so because Mulrooney has served as judge in Ramsey County since 2016 and is one of the finest judges on the bench. Mulrooney has demonstrated the qualities needed in a district court judge: intelligence, a deep commitment to the fair enforcement and application of the law, a profound understanding of the law and courtroom operations in Ramsey County, empathy for all the individuals and families who appear in his courtroom and the humility necessary for this difficult work.

Mulrooney is one of only three judges in Ramsey County who has responsibility for the mental health/civil commitment court system. The litigants in the mental health system are among the most vulnerable, and it is critical that a judge with his knowledge and experience continues to manage the complex needs of that specialized court. If you or someone close to you is a Ramsey County litigant, whether in a civil, criminal or family court case, Mulrooney is the kind of judge you want making the decision on the important issues that bring you before the court.

Elections present a choice. In this race, there are two candidates. Mulrooney’s opponent became a lawyer in 2021. According to public data available on Minnesota Court Records Online, there is no record of his opponent ever appearing as an attorney in any Minnesota state courtroom. No one should have a judge making critical decisions without the experience needed to manage this important role. Mulrooney has this experience.

Finally, representative of the broad and deep support of his peers, Mulrooney received 91.32% in the Ramsey County Bar plebiscite, a survey provided to bar members. Mulrooney’s supporters represent a broad cross-section of attorneys (family, personal injury, public defenders, county attorneys), mental health professionals, present and former elected officials, and community members. We strongly ask you to support the re-election of Judge Tim Mulrooney to the Ramsey County District Court.

This letter was submitted by Richard Cohen, former Minnesota state senator; George Stephenson, former Ramsey County judge; Kevin Burke, former Hennepin County chief judge; Jim Fleming, former chief public defender, Ramsey County; Tami McConkey, director of the victim, witness and postconviction justice division, Ramsey County Attorney’s Office; Sabrina Yates, assistant director of the trial division, Ramsey County Attorney’s Office.

•••

Respect for tribal nations is a bedrock principle of ethical governance, and the Minnesota Supreme Court justices up for election this November play important roles in fostering strong relationships between the state of Minnesota and the 11 tribes that share the same borders. Justice Karl Procaccini has demonstrated a commitment to working with and respecting tribal communities.

Throughout his time serving as general counsel to Gov. Tim Walz and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, Procaccini was integral in supporting the governor and lieutenant governor’s government-to-government relationships and respect for tribal sovereignty. In 2019, Procaccini collaborated with the governor and lieutenant governor’s tribal-state relations team and tribal leadership to draft an executive order requiring that state agencies create a plan to regularly consult with Minnesota’s 11 tribal nations. Walz later signed legislation cementing this executive order into Minnesota law.

In 2020, Procaccini worked alongside the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and state agencies as the state recognized the Mille Lacs reservation boundary to reflect the lines drawn in the 1855 treaty. The state’s decision to recognize that boundary brought it in line with the opinion of the federal government, and the 1855 boundary was later affirmed by a federal court.

Procaccini again worked closely with tribal governments during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that COVID-related executive orders included clear provisions respecting the authority of tribal governments.

As a lawyer and as a Minnesota Supreme Court justice, Procaccini understands the importance of the rule of law and respecting the rights of Minnesota’s tribal nations. He is committed to upholding the sovereign rights of tribal governments and to recognizing the myriad challenges and resilient history of Minnesota’s Native communities. Vote for Procaccini this November to retain a public servant committed to working in partnership with Minnesota’s 11 tribal nations.

Minnesotans who share a commitment to respecting tribal nations should remember to turn over the ballot this November and vote to retain Justice Karl Procaccini.

This letter was submitted on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

•••

Two helpful articles appeared in the paper on Monday on the subject of judicial elections, often a mystifying subject for voters because the work of judges is most often invisible (“Few state judicial races are in play,” front page, and “The context of judicial elections in Minnesota,” Strib Voices). I would add one important point to those articles. Judicial elections have a unique feature not included in any other election category. Although they do not show party endorsement (and most often, there are no party endorsements), they do show which candidate is the sitting judge, by the designation “incumbent.” This designation is very important for two reasons. First, it tells you which candidate has actual judicial experience. Being a judge at any level, but especially in the district court, has a learning curve. Experience in the job means that the incumbent has undertaken the required judicial education and has had on-the-job training. Second, if the incumbent was appointed to the bench, it tells you this candidate has been vetted and found to be qualified, with careful review by the governor and his appointments staff and, in many cases, by the largely independent Judicial Selection Commission, which reviews qualifications and makes recommendations to the governor. When my nonlawyer friends ask for advice on judicial elections, I suggest they vote for the incumbent.

Sam Hanson, Minneapolis

The writer is an attorney and a retired associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The letter writer of “Cut the condescension” (Readers Write, Oct. 7) thinks rural Minnesota is red not because rural folks are dummies who fall for a con man like former President Donald Trump but because of their legitimate concerns about public policy. Fine — this is a good discussion to have.

First issue: Rural Minnesotans were better off under Trump; under Biden, costs and interest rates are up. Ergo, Trump is the logical choice. But let’s examine those assumptions. By most metrics, the economy is better now than when Trump was president. But more important, inflation was happening worldwide, and economists generally agree that it was largely caused by the COVID pandemic. Plus, why is this uniquely a rural issue? We’re all in this together — words you will never hear from Trump.

Next: Rural folks are angry about problems at our southern border, which Vice President Kamala Harris was supposed to fix. Immigration is a significant issue to be sure, but rural Minnesota thrives, in part, on the people who move here (as we almost all did). And Harris’ assignment was not to “fix” the border but to work on root causes of migration — an immense, long-term task. The one entity that could fix the border is Congress — which was poised to pass landmark legislation until Trump put the kibosh on it because solving the problem now would hurt him politically. So why aren’t rural folks angry at Trump?

His last points (college loan forgiveness, abortion) rest on assumptions that rural people never go to college, every single one is Christian and all Christians are appalled by abortion. These ideas are so factually wrong, and so offensive to rural and urban folks alike, that I honestly can’t even respond to them.

So the why is rural Minnesota so red? Books have been, and are being, written about it. But the letter writer’s simple “explanation” is not convincing.

Stephen Bubul, Minneapolis