Democrats in St. Paul appear to be preparing to try to amend the state Constitution such that judges will be appointed rather than elected. If you do not think that is a good idea, contact your state representative and senator and give them a piece of your mind. For those interested in more details, read on.
Bills HF.224 and SF.0070 were introduced in 2009. Democrats appear to be preparing to bring them to a vote in their respective chambers in this session. In summary, by my understanding of the house version:
A judge’s initial term of office will be 3-5 years. lines 1.6-18
A commission will evaluate and publish judge performance. lines 1.21-23
The commission will rate judges as well qualified, qualified, or unqualified for office. lines 7.13-14
The commission’s rating will be “available to the public” prior to the election (but no details are given as to what is considered to be “available”). lines 8.8-9
Judges will be presented on general election ballots at the end of each of their terms but only to indicate, yes or no, whether voters believe a judge’s term should be renewed. (This may be used to claim that judges are still elected but keep reading.) lines 2.8-12
Judges that fail their retention vote are removed from office but they can only fail if a majority of those voting on the question vote No. lines 4.17-18
Retained judges’ terms are 8 years. lines 1.18-19
Rejected judges are replaced by appointment. lines 4.18-19
Presto. Judges are not elected.