Laurette S. Arnold
Education: Indiana University School of Law; University of Minnesota.
Work experience: Law Clerk for the 10th Judicial District – Pine County for 4-plus years and currently an associate attorney practicing in civil litigation, real property, municipal, corporate, probate and family law. Working in small yet diverse communities has allowed for the opportunity to gain knowledge in all areas of law.
1. What makes you the best candidate to be a judge?
I have the requisite experience, knowledge and legal skills as well as insight and integrity to be a fair and impartial judge. My undergraduate studies were in science and mathematics, making me very analytical, and I believe that this trait coupled with my ability to “think outside the box” makes me the best able to discern the evidence and apply the law appropriately. Further, I understand that although court may be an “everyday” occurrence for the judge, it’s not so for those appearing before it as their property and/or liberty is at stake.
2. How would you as a judge suggest the court system respond to limited or reduced state funding?
I have not had the opportunity to perform a full and complete review of court system’s budget; however, I would suggest the following: requiring mediation and neutral services earlier in a case matter; increased use of referees; and requesting that the legislature review increasing the statutory limit of conciliation (small claims) court.
3. Do you believe judicial candidates should be allowed to discuss political views and be involved in non-judicial politics?
Discussing viewpoints increases voter information; involvement in politics allows candidates (voters) full participation in elections. I disagree with the position that if judges’ political positions/affiliations are known, then the public will perceive them to be partial/biased. The position only leads me to believe that those purporting it would they themselves be biased. I have appeared before judges with opposite political views, and not once, have I assumed/believed that this caused the judge to render unfair/biased rulings. It’s an issue of free speech and free association. What kind of judge would I be if I favored limiting this speech or association?More from around the web