Wersal says he's 'elated' by decision

St Paul Pioneer (de)Press /AP ^ | 6/27/02 | ASHLEY H. GRANT

[Valin]

Greg Wersal laughed happily on the phone today after hearing he had won a long-fought battle over free speech for judicial candidates.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down limits on what some judicial candidates may tell voters in the case initiated by Wersal, a 46-year-old Golden Valley attorney.

"I'm elated," said the three-time state Supreme Court candidate. "I think it's fantastic."

The Supreme Court agreed with Wersal that Minnesota's strict limits on speech amounted to an unconstitutional gag order on judicial candidates.

Most states keep candidates from divulging their positions on issues that might come before their court. Minnesota is one of nine states that had banned would-be judges from announcing views on disputed legal or political issues.

"This has been a long, long process of trying to restore judicial elections in Minnesota," Wersal said. "This was kind of the last building block. I think we're there."

He said the decision allows judicial challengers to effectively criticize the decisions of incumbent judges and result in "real elections."

The conservative Republican had argued that he should be able tell the Minnesota voters what kind of judge he would be. The state rules leave voters with little useful information about candidates, Wersal and the state Republican Party said.

"You have to have candidates who can state their views on issues or else you just have meaningless elections," he said. "People have no idea who these people are or why they should vote for them."

Now, he said, "when people go to vote, they will have a reason to vote."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed Wersal's argument. So did conservative groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice and usually liberal ones such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen.

The state of Minnesota, backed by the American Bar Association and a long list of judges' and legal groups, argued that the rules promote an independent, impartial judiciary.

Neither state officials nor representatives of the state Bar Association immediately returned phone calls seeking comment.

Wersal, who ran for the state Supreme Court in 1996, 1998 and 2000, said he didn't know if he would run again.

"Never say never," he said.

This year, 33 states are holding high court elections. The ruling should affect the eight states that have similar provisions: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. Other states may also have to change their rules.

Wersal's attorney, Bill Mohrman, called the decision "a victory for democratic self government.

"The purpose of electing judges is to ensure that state voters have the ability to 'throw out' at the ballot box those judges who have stopped interpreting the law and started making laws to which those voters have not consented," Mohrman said.

[Valin]

Some really great news.