Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Previously Donated To Coleman
Now here's something interesting in the Minnesota Senate trial, which is sure to be appealed to the state Supreme Court: As Senate Guru over at MyDD points out, one of the state Supreme Court justices has in the past donated to Norm Coleman.
In the years before he was appointed to the state bench, Christopher Dietzen was a private attorney and occasional Republican donor, including a check for $250 to Coleman in December 2001, and another $250 for the current cycle in January 2004. The Hill also points out Dietzen served as a campaign counsel for GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty, during the 2002 open-seat race.
A spokesman for the state Supreme Court told TPM that no information is available about any possible recusal. Since there hasn't been an actual ruling in the trial, much less the filing of an appeal, we don't know and cannot predict what would happen.
The question here is the degree to which Dietzen's pre-judicial activities might impact the legitimacy of the proceedings. For my own part, having watched all the legal arguments in this election, I haven't noticed any severe or obvious political bias on Dietzen's part -- he has sometimes ruled against Franken, and sometimes ruled against Coleman. And he's pitched tough questions at both sides.
And there's another problem here: If Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice Barry Anderson were to recuse themselves from the appeal -- which they've done in prior litigation here, because they served on the specially-formed State Canvassing Board -- then having Dietzen leave would reduce the court to only four members out of seven. And who knows, Associated Justice Alan Page might be called upon to recuse himself, too, because he selected the three judges on the trial court, which would bring us down to three, less than half of the total number of judges.


















Not wanting to be called a hypocrite i have to ask... have any of the judges contributed to Franken? Or have they worked on Democratic campaigns in the past?
April 13, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good this is being brought out now, before these justices are actually needed.
April 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a beautiful thing -- this "Decide elections by lawsuit". Glad to know that 3 people get to handpick Senators, as opposed to, say, the people.
April 13, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure "handpick" is really an accurate term here. Handpick suggests the judges/justices get to make a decision independent of any other factors. But clearly here the judges are bound by: a) the law governing elections in Minnesota, and; b) the facts of the case before them (i.e. the ballots themselves). That is what judges are asked to do in all cases, decide a case constrained by the facts and the law, particularly in cases where the results are not completely clear. We can be frustrated by close elections and the processes that we have to resolve them (Instant runoff voting would have most likely resolved this election), but I don't think it is right to grossly mischaracterize what it is the third branch is being called upon to do and how they are tasked with doing it.
April 13, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bu$h was the trailblazer back in 2000. He set the standard for all repuglicans to follow.
April 13, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Christopher Dietzen having donated to Norm Coleman's campaigns means he needs to recuse himself.
It would be different if he had been paid by Coleman's campaign, which he apparently wasn't.
RE "Associated Justice Alan Page might be called upon to recuse himself, too, because he selected the three judges on the trial court."
I don't think Alan Page needs to recuse himself either. Bosses hire people, and then review their work.
April 13, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dietzen absolutely needs to recuse himself.
You cannot repeatedly give money to a politician and then sit and pretend you are objective in judging them. No no no.
Maybe Dietzen is an honest guy and is being totally fair in his rulings but a minimum standard of appearances is always necessary for the public to swallow whatever comes flowing down the mountain.
Why on Earth hasn't this come out earlier?
April 13, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink