Minn. GOP Had No Idea Their Supreme Court Nominee Has DWI Case Pending

Attorney Diane Bratvold argues Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer's position before the Minnesota Supreme Court Monday afternoon, Nov. 22, 2010 in St. Paul, Minn. The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments... Attorney Diane Bratvold argues Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer's position before the Minnesota Supreme Court Monday afternoon, Nov. 22, 2010 in St. Paul, Minn. The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments about how the recount in the governor's race should proceed. (AP Photo/Jeff Wheeler, Pool) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Just a few days ago, the Minnesota Republican Party endorsed attorney Michelle MacDonald’s bid for a state Supreme Court seat. On Thursday, state Republican Party Chairman Keith Downey found out MacDonald has been accused of drunken driving and her case is pending.

“None of us, including the convention delegates, were aware of this information about the candidate,” Downey told The Minneapolis Star Tribune. “She, of course, is innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time, the delegates did not have the full disclosure they should have.”

The Star Tribune reported Friday that MacDonald was arrested in April 2013 on suspicion of drunken driving and resisting arrest. The 52-year-old lawyer repeatedly refused field sobriety tests, and told an officer that she hadn’t been drinking, that she was a “reserve cop” and a lawyer, and that she would walk home, according to the Star Tribune. Her case is scheduled to go to trial in September, just weeks before election day.

But MacDonald told the newspaper that the state GOP’s Judicial Election Committee was aware of the pending case, and that they had supported her when she told them her side of the story.

“When I was being interviewed [by committee members] they were saying this is a good thing because I’ve experienced what people are experiencing on a daily basis,” MacDonald told the Star Tribune. “I just never thought this would happen and I’m sucked into a system. Why am I even having to bother with a case where I’ve had zero alcohol, and why am I being asked to go to a trial where they cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Downey acknowledged to the paper that MacDonald’s nomination had come forward “at the last minute,” and that the party should have done things differently.

Latest Livewire
35
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Don’t you just love the system?..it’s a beaut!!

  2. What they should have done was not endorse for a judicial election. Minnesota’s parties normally don’t. The Republicans endorse some years but not others, and I’m guessing they did this year because the two justices up for election were appointed by the current Democratic governor. The Democrats still don’t endorse, and few judicial candidates seek party endorsement. The ones who do seek endorsement have always been hard right. So the Republicans could have stuck to long standing practice and stayed out of a judicial election. That makes this a self-inflicted wound.

  3. Maybe the Minnesota Republican Party should have called a cab for her instead of allowing her to drive her own car after their annual Strangle the Puppy bacchanalia back in 2013.

    On the other hand perhaps they were all too tipsy to have noticed her exit.

  4. The phrase, “None of us, including the convention delegates, were aware…" pretty much covers every subject for Minnesota GOPosaurs. Then again, being clueless and unaware is a prerequisite to be a member of the GOP, rather than a disqualification…

  5. Why am I even having to bother with a case where I’ve had zero alcohol, and why am I being asked to go to a trial where they cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?”

    Minnesota law reads in part:

    Additionally, Minnesota’s implied consent law says that you consent to taking a preliminary breath test. This works like a field sobriety test. The officer will use the results to establish probable cause that you were driving under the influence. You do not have to take this preliminary test, and the officer should say so. Refusing it, however, probably won’t work in your favor if the officer has some other reason to think you had been drinking. Based on that other reason, the officer could still arrest you and then you will be required to take a test under the law described in the paragraph above.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

29 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for webcelt Avatar for fgs Avatar for doninsd Avatar for Diogenes67 Avatar for mooster Avatar for sjb1126mn Avatar for cessnadriver Avatar for bojimbo26 Avatar for counter_coulter Avatar for rollinnolan Avatar for bluinmaine Avatar for onyxbook Avatar for tamdai Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for sethwhite Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for pdq3 Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for occamsrazor2 Avatar for ryokyo Avatar for carlkirsch Avatar for henk Avatar for ThePatriott

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: