{"id":56540,"date":"2015-12-07T06:00:08","date_gmt":"2015-12-07T12:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=56540"},"modified":"2015-12-07T08:56:50","modified_gmt":"2015-12-07T14:56:50","slug":"the-gops-keystone-kommittee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=56540","title":{"rendered":"The GOP’s Keystone Kommittee"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the downsides of being a GOP activist and officer is that you have to get involved, even passively, in GOP inside baseball. \u00a0 Ever. \u00a0For any reason.<\/p>\n

And of course, it’s important; without a viable challenge to the DFL, Minnesota is a few downturns away from turning into California. \u00a0Or Minneapolis.<\/p>\n

So I go to the meetings. \u00a0I vote on stuff. \u00a0I do my bit to try to help get better people elected to office; not just Republicans, but conservative Republicans who support limited government.<\/p>\n

And I try to get as informed as I can about some of the “inside baseball” issues in the GOP; the budget deficit (how the hell…?), the collapse in the Cities, the turnout issues in the first and second ring ‘burbs…<\/p>\n

…and of course, the Judicial Elections Committee.<\/p>\n

That Buzzing Sound That Never Goes Away<\/strong>: \u00a0The JEC is an obscure fixture in the MNGOP, focusing both on endorsing judicial candidates and fighting for judicial reform.<\/p>\n

As re the second? \u00a0The subject is a deadly combination of intensely technical and very important. \u00a0 It’s intensely picayune – and absolutely vital. \u00a0The judiciary has turned into an unaccountable, opaque, lifetime sinecure in Minnesota; judges have extremely disproportionate power as a result, and the ability to make sweeping decisions with almost no accountability. \u00a0And the power extends beyond just the courtroom; the past several state redistricting processes, including the 2010 redistricting – gerrymandered enough to make Bull Connor and George Wallace sit up in the grave and say “Hey, bucko, you’re getting a little carried away, here”. \u00a0“Shall Issue” carry reform was struck down in 2004 by a judge whose home was\u00a0a DFL hamster wheel and who, ignoring the fact that every state budget is a combination of omnibus bills full of unrelated amendments, struck down the law because it wasn’t closely\u00a0enough\u00a0<\/em>related to the bill that was originally amended.<\/p>\n

So there is\u00a0<\/i>a problem that needs to be solved.<\/p>\n

There’s a lot of history to the notion of judicial endorsements, and the creation of the JEC, and its activities since it was established; I’ve written about them in the past, and I won’t rewrite it all now (search my site for references to the phrase “My brain went blank and my ass went numb”).<\/p>\n

But it’s the JEC’s recent history that concerns me most.<\/p>\n

Last Saturday was the GOP’s State Central Committee meeting. \u00a0I didn’t attend – but the future of the JEC was one of the subjects up for discussion. \u00a0And my butt went a little numb just reading the accounts on Twitter.<\/p>\n

Business<\/strong>: \u00a0Of course, the JEC’s main claim to “fame” was the endorsement of Michelle McDonald to run for State Supreme Court. \u00a0This happened at the MNGOP State Convention in Rochester in May of 2014. \u00a0McDonald turned out to have a pending year-old DUI charge – about which the convention was not told. \u00a0 We’ve written about<\/a> this at some length<\/a> in the past.<\/p>\n

Let’s fast forward to last Saturday. \u00a0A series of handouts\u00a0was waiting for the SCC delegates as they arrived at the event, or distributed during the convention; a friend scanned and sent them to\u00a0me (the scan is included below the jump).<\/p>\n

In it, the JEC explains the reasons for its existence – and, to be honest, does it fairly well, in places (and let’s be honest – the handout was written by logorrheacs, and you have to dig to find the good stuff. \u00a0But it’s in there). \u00a0In all my years of listening to JEC members trying to explain why judicial endorsements, and judicial reform, are good and vital, and why retention elections are bad, this is the first time even the faintest hint of a light has gone off above my head.<\/p>\n

And so partly as a result of this handout, my previous determination to tear down the JEC, with flamethrowers if necessary, has been tempered just a bit.<\/p>\n

I said “the JEC”.<\/p>\n

The JEC’s membership is another story.<\/p>\n

Twenty Octogenarians Driving A Clown Car<\/strong><\/strong>: \u00a0If you recall – and I completely forgive you if you do not – the history of and beef with the McDonald endorsement goes a little something like this:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The JEC recommended Michelle McDonald – a controversial family-law lawyer – for nomination to run for the Supreme Court (SCOM).<\/li>\n
  2. At the State Convention, after the delegates had endured a 20-odd-hour endorsement battle for Senate, the JEC brought McDonald to the stage for a speech and a motion for endorsement by acclamation. \u00a0Many delegates were out – grabbing a bite, or in the bathroom, or stretching their legs after the endless Senate battle – and many that were in the room reported feeling bum-rushed – but the motion for acclamation passed, and McDonald was endorsed.<\/li>\n
  3. The following week, the media reported that McDonald had a pending DUI charge awaiting trial.<\/li>\n
  4. Reports emerged that the JEC had been aware of this charge, but had voted to nominate McDonald anyway, and had voted to\u00a0not inform the delegates,\u00a0<\/em>including blocking an attempt to issue a minority report to the convention that would have brought up the legal issues for the delegates’ consideration.<\/li>\n
  5. McDonald and the MNGOP brass spent the next five months fighting each other, under a blazing media spotlight, rarely managing or bothering to engage the DFL’s candidate, Darth Lillehaug, on any level.<\/li>\n
  6. McDonald went on to lose the election against Lillehaug. \u00a0According to some reports, her campaign raised less that $1,000, and spent about $8,000.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The handouts give\u00a0a couple of insights into the JEC’s performance – or “performance” – at the 2014 State convention, in the first two pages (the pink ones, whose order is reversed; page 2 is actually page 1). \u00a0 It’s also full of opinion-driven weasel words – “the chair appeared…”, “in the committee’s opinion, the chair…” and the like.<\/p>\n

    There are two quotes from the handout, though, that display…something about the JEC’s opinion of itself; whether that something is arrogance, incompetence or malfeasance, I’m not sure and I’ll leave it to better judges than I.<\/p>\n

    It should be noted that the purpose of any endorsing committee is to spare the convention the task of sorting through a candidate’s personal life. \u00a0the job of any endorsing committee is to do the work in confidence and present a yes or no to the convention. \u00a0Committees focus on a candidate’s message, their willingness to campaign hard and their ability appeal (sic) to voters. \u00a0The idea that the Judicial Election Committee (or any other nominating committee) should air a candidate’s personal information to the convention is badly misinformed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Exactly what a nominating committee is\u00a0supposed\u00a0<\/em>to do is a subject worthy of discussion. And the passage may be right; a nominating committee should concern itself with competence and electability.<\/p>\n

    But a\u00a0legal proceeding that is guaranteed to provoke a media feeding frenzy\u00a0<\/em>is both\u00a0not “personal information”<\/strong> – it’s a public record, available online from the courts – and\u00a0of direct impact to\u00a0the candidate’s electability<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    So this quote – along with the rest of the information in the handout, brings up three possibilities:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The majority of the JEC genuinely believed that an arrest record is “personal information” that was nobody’s business<\/strong>. \u00a0If this was the case, then we’re dealing with some stupid people. \u00a0Arrest records are public! \u00a0Public! \u00a0Public! \u00a0Anyone who thought this was “personal information”, and believed that the media and DFL would treat it that way, needs to be publicly (rhetorically) horsewhipped.<\/li>\n
    2. They knew about the arrest record, but figured it wouldn’t be a problem, since McDonald assured them the charge was BS<\/strong>: \u00a0 You’ll note how many media figured led with the whole “Michelle McDonald is innocent until proven guilty, and gosh, she looks like she has a strong case” tack, right? \u00a0Somewhere less than zero? \u00a0Part of a nominations commission’s job is to try, as far as possible, to prevent media poo-storms like…the one we had.<\/li>\n
    3. The JEC figured the news would be a problem, but wanted to jam McDonald down anyway, <\/b>leading a supermajority to vote against the issuance of a minority report. \u00a0 This is the worst kind of malfeasance.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      We also see in another quote that the JEC is wallowing in either wishful thinking or an arrogant desire to bullshit the rest of the party:<\/p>\n

      …in spite of the flap over a now resolved (not guilty) DWI case, Michelle McDonald for Supreme Court won 46.54% of the vote. \u00a0This is higher than Johnson, McFadden, Severson, Gilbert and Newman – all the other MNGOP endorsed candidates<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      How stupid do these people think the rest of the party is?<\/p>\n

      The DWI is “now resolved” – but it wasn’t at election time. \u00a0And the media certainly didn’t harp on “innocence until proven guilty”.<\/p>\n

      As to her turnout? \u00a0As we pointed out the first time the JEC tried to use this chanting point to gull the gullible<\/a>, it was BS. \u00a0McDonald got 46% against Lillehaug, it’s true\u00a0–\u00a0but John Hancock got 42% against Mimi Wright, and virtually every contested judicial race in the state got 35-40%. \u00a0McDonald outscored\u00a0random, obstinate, uninformed noise\u00a0<\/em>by 4-6%. And while it’s possible she outperformed “background noise” due to her brilliant campaign, it’s also possible that a few thousand shooters voted against Darth Lillehaug, and would have no matter who was nominated.<\/p>\n

      My Conclusion, For Those Who Care?<\/strong>: \u00a0The JEC exists for good reason. \u00a0Minnesota’s judicial system needs changes, and the GOP needs to help drive those changes.<\/p>\n

      But most of its members need to go. \u00a0Decency would involve resignations of the sitting membership for their malfeasance, or at least stupidity, in the McDonald flap. \u00a0 The JEC process is almost completely opaque to delegates, and even officers at the BPOU and Congressional District level. \u00a0 I’m an officer, and I have no idea how Judicial Districts elect officers and do business. \u00a0It’s not just me.<\/p>\n

      The JEC, in my opinion, is a nook and cranny of the GOP that was built by, and is controlled by, a group of people who have turned it into their little political playground. \u00a0This doesn’t serve the mission that the JEC has set out for itself.<\/p>\n

      Just my opinion. \u00a0But I’m not alone.<\/p>\n

      As we’ll see, I’m sure, come the next State Convention.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Telling Tangent:\u00a0<\/strong>Want to know something ironic? \u00a0I might well have voted for McDonald even with the pending DUI charge, had the JEC tried a little honesty, and had McDonald spent more time tackling Darth Lillehaug than Keith Downey. \u00a0But if I’d known about her involvement in the Grazzini-Rucki custody battle, I’d have voted for Charles Manson before I’d vote for McDonald. \u00a0 If McDonald was involved with kidnapping and brainwashing a couple of kids against their custodial father, she deserves much worse than losing an election.<\/p>\n

      <\/p>\n

      JEC Handout for SCC 2015<\/a><\/p>\n