Who is Greg Wersal? Greg Wersal is perhaps the lawyer judges hate most. This is because Greg Wersal has worked tirelessly to make judges accountable to the public through free, open and competitive elections. If you do not know of Greg Wersal’s story, keep reading and you will know why some people call Greg Wersal a “hero.”

When most people go to vote, they have no idea who the judicial candidates are or why they should vote for them. This doesn’t happen by accident. It happens by design. The judges who created this system want it to work that way -- because they keep getting re-elected.

In a normal election, you would expect the candidate to tell you their views on legal and political issues. Then you, as a voter, would be able to make an intelligent choice when you vote. But the judges created a rule that prohibited judicial candidates from stating their views on legal and political issues.

In a normal election, you would expect the candidate to raise money so that he could get his message out to the public. But in a judicial campaign, the candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign funds. This rule created by the Minnesota Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for a challenger to win against an incumbent judge.

In a real sense these elections were/are sham elections -- stolen elections -- that did/do not serve the public, but only serve the interests of the incumbents who want to maintain their positions of power.

Greg Wersal challenged some of the most flagrant rules as unconstitutional infringements of free speech in a case that went all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. And Greg won! (For more information on this 8 year battle see the article entitled Fixing Judicial Elections.) As a result of Greg’s fight, judicial candidates can state their views on legal issues and should be able to solicit funds for their campaigns.

But the story does not end there.

Within months of Greg’s win in federal court, the Minnesota Supreme Court created new rules to make it difficult for any one to challenge an incumbent. The judges created a new rule that says judicial candidates can personally solicit campaign funds, but only if there are 20 or more people in the audience. This rule suits the purpose of the judges who raise most of their money by going to large law firms in Minneapolis and St. Paul of 100 to 500 lawyers. But it makes it very difficult for a challenger who wants to talk to individual voters and solicit support.

So in 2008, Greg began a federal lawsuit challenging that restriction on solicitation as an infringement of free speech. The case was argued before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 15, 2009 and we are waiting for the Court’s decision.

But the story does not end there. After the U. S. Supreme Court decision, the judges in Minnesota started pushing for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the judicial elections Minnesota has had since its inception as a state. The proposed constitutional amendment would create a system where all judges would be appointed by the Governor. (Of course, all the current judges would be grandfathered in to the new system.) Greg Wersal has testified against this proposed constitutional amendment at numerous legislative hearings calling it “constitutional malpractice,” because there is no check and balance on the power of the Governor to appoint and the judicial branch would, for all practical purposes, be unaccountable to the public. So far, the proposed constitutional amendment has failed to pass in the last 3 legislative sessions, but the judges and their supporters have already promised that they will be back again.

Another impediment in judicial elections is the ‘incumbent’ designation on the ballot. Unlike the candidates running for any other office, the incumbent judge who is seeking elections gets a notation on the ballot that he is the incumbent. Greg believes that the incumbent designation gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. Furthermore it creates a system where the less information that is available to the voter, the greater the advantage that is garnered to the incumbent by the designation. The judges actually benefit by creating the rules that make getting reasonable information to the voters difficult, if not impossible – they benefit by having the voters be ignorant. Greg began another federal lawsuit in 2010 seeking to have the ‘incumbent’ designation removed from the ballot.

Greg believes that judges must be accountable to the Constitution and to the public. Greg believes in the right to vote and that people have a right to choose their judges. Greg’s opponent in this race is an incumbent who supports the proposed constitutional amendment that would take away your right to vote for judges. Greg’s opponent is a member of the Minnesota Supreme Court and responsible for the rules that make these elections a farce.

We hope you will join Greg in the fight for your right to vote and the right of the public to hold judges accountable.

Greg needs your help:

• To volunteer, send us an This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

• To contribute, send the check to Wersal for Justice, or click on the Paypal insignia at this website and pay by credit card.

• Spread the word – send out e-mails to your friends and tell them to support Greg Wersal.