1. Stephen Baker v. Susan Burke
This is a race for an open seat - an unusual occurrence in Minnesota where judges traditionally leave office in the middle of their terms to let the governor fill their seat. In this case, incumbent Harvey Ginsberg was politically trapped into relinquishing his seat due to misconduct on and off the bench, including criminal charges and convictions. Both candidates in this race are primarily career prosecutors, with some civil law experience.
Susan Burke is a federal drug prosecutor whose job is mostly to put people in prison for a very, excessively long time. Stephen Baker is a municipal suburban prosecutor who handles misdemeanors, but previously handled
criminal appeals in Florida where his job included trying to get people killed by the state. Beneath my framing of their job descriptions, however, Susan Burke is clearly more desirable for the job.
I have not dealt with Baker personally, but have witnessed his political activism which was very revealing. As mentioned on a previous post, Stephen Baker distinguished himself earlier this year by his public advocacy on a specific political issue. He testifed before the Minnesota House Committee on Judiciary Policy and Finance on February 26, 2004 IN FAVOR of the death penalty. The hearing can be downloaded from this website:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/audio/archivescomm.asp?comm=18&ls_year=83
(His testimony is about an hour into the hearing) Baker was the only practicing attorney to testify for the death penalty in either the House or Senate Committee hearings. Many attorneys testifed against. The death
penalty bill was tabled in the House, and soundly defeated (8-2 with all DFLers and two Republicans against) in Senate Committee. Some supporters of Baker argue that his position in favor of the death penalty is irrelevant
because there is no death penalty in Minnesota and he therefore will not have the opportunity to impose it as a state court judge. I believe Baker's advocacy for the death penalty is highly relevant for several reasons.
First, the fact that Baker would choose to take his time and energy to publicly advocate for such a barbaric, backwards, and demonstrably unfair remedy indicates a set of values that we do not want from a Minnesota state
court judge. His actions indicate a priority on the criminal justice system as a means of revenge, and a desire for revenge that overshadows concerns for well-established problems such as racial and socio-economic discrimination, and inherent potential for error in a human
error in a human-operated system. While these issues have been well-documented in implementation of the death penalty, they manifest themselves heavily in Minnesota's criminal justice system. If these issues
are not of sufficient concern for Baker to give him pause about advocating for the death penalty, they are unlikely to play a significant role in his handling of criminal cases that come before him as judge. The second area of relevance of Baker's advocacy of the death penalty is that in a state where virtually all Democrats and about half Republican state legislators oppose the death penalty, a position in favor of the death penalty appears to place Baker far on the ideological right. This is corroborated by the fact that most of his politician supporters are Republican officeholders or former Republican officerholders. www.Bakerforjudge.com (Eva Young claimed on this list that Baker is receiving support from MCCL through phone banking. MCCL, however, does not appear to be publicly endorsing Baker - www.mcclpac.org/mn_courts.htm) Several sources have stated that Baker has been active in Republican campaigns. I have observed his lawn signs next to other Republican candidates. Having a judge with an deologically rightwing orientation could be problematic in a variety of areas. The third reason that Baker's advocacy for the death penalty is relevant is the way he
presented his testimony before the HOuse Committee. I heard it. His testimony was weak and contradictory. Baker spent signifcant time discussing how as a Florida appeal prosecutor, he had to go through the agony of informing family members of victims that the death sentence had been overturned due to errors at trial. This testimony actually goes against the death penalty because it underscores the fact that error rates are far higher in death penalty cases, and going for the death penalty will
greatly increase uncertainty and delay closure for victims' families. Baker acknowledged he appeared to be providing arguments against the death penalty, and then proceeded to praise the proposed bill because it provided so much protection of defendants' rights. He emphasized the provision that prevented the execution of pregnant women. How humane! Would any death penalty proponent advocate executing an unborn fetus? The weakness of Baker's testimony is problematic because one would expect a judge to be able to justify a position competently. In particular, a person with ethical
substance that one ideally assocaites with being a judge would have deeply thought about his participation in such a grave activity that involves life and death more than sufficiently to justify his position. Another possibility is that Baker was not deeply committed to the death penalty, but appeared to testify as a political favor to the samll group of beleaguered Republican death penalty proponents who needed a credentialed attorney to
speak for their position. Someone who testifies for such an issue as a political favor should not be a judge.
Baker does have some positive attributes, He has a variety of legal experience. According to his comments at the judicial candidate forum, he has done pro bono work to learn legal areas. He has also volunteered for policy groups such as domestic violence. Baker has the support of a relatively small group of prosecutors and defense attorneys. (Some defense attorneys withdrew or switched after hearing about Baker's advocacy for the
death penalty). His defense attorney supporters have found him reasonable in their cases. However, his conduct on suburban misdemeanor cases does not
necessarily provide much insight into how he will handle more complicated, controversial or hight stakes matters.
Susan Burke, has spend her career with the US epartment of Justice, with most as a prosecutor in the US attorney's office. Although federal prosecutors are often harsh and insensitive, reflecting the harsh laws they
impose, Susan Burke's personality seems to defy these tendencies. I have dealt with her as a defense attorney. She is focused on her job, but does not suggest any sort of veangeful agenda and is open and straightforward.
In personal interactions with all players in the system, it is clear that she makes a point in listening to what everyone has to say, and is cordial and considerate. She indicated in the judicial candidates forum that she welcomes an opportunity to play a more humane role in people's lives as a judge, as opposed to her role as a federal prosector. Burke seems like she would easily fit into a judicial role. Her very large number of endorsements include many prosecutors and defense attorneys. www.burkeforjudge.com Although some of the attorneys are playing politics, the large number of both prosecutor and defense attorney supporters are a
strong indication that she is perceived as being fair and open minded and being willing to listen to all sides. A criticism implied by Burke's opponent is that she lacks experience in the Hennpin COunty Court. The court rules and practices, however, can be learned quickly and do not go to the important underlying skills and qualities needed in a judge.
Burke also has an astonishing number of supporters from the political power structure. These include current and former Democratic and Republican officer holders ranging from state legislators to county attorneys, business
movers and shakers, Arne Carlson and Walter Mondale, and various public employee and law enforcement unions. A thorough political analysis requires an exploration of this dynamic. It is possible that Burke has made some political connections on her own, but it is unlikely that she could line up all these endorsements from the narrowly focused sphere of a federal government attorney. A lot of the political support must be related to
Susan's marriage to Kevin Burke, the recent chief judge of Hennepin County District Court for eight of the past twelve years, and the singularly dominating political figure in the Hennepin County Court system. While Kevin Burke has implemented impressive iniatiatives and innovations for a large bureaucracy run by more than 60 judges over thousands of court staff (specialty courts are the most notable example), he is also known to throw
his power around, reward his allies and punish his adversaries. (Haven't heard of anything malicious for many years). For better or worse, he would politically benefit by having a spouse as another judge and likely
supporter. At the same time, one out of more than sixty judges is unlikely to have a signficant impact on whether Kevin Burke maintains or increases his power, and there is no basis to believe Susan Burke will not operate
independently. These concerns are no significant in the light of the serious political concerns posed by Stephen Baker.
(other races to be covered in separate post due to size)
Jordan Kushner
works downtown
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
