Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel and judges urge raises to stem judicial recruitment, citing 2024 wave of vacancies
Summary
A Judicial Selection Commission presentation and multiple judges' witnesses told the council that 2024 saw an unusually large number of judicial vacancies and that salary gaps — particularly between judges and county attorneys or private practice — are reducing applications, especially in Greater Minnesota; presenters recommended staged pay increases and additional data to guide council action.
A representative of the Judicial Selection Commission told the State Compensation Council on March 7 that last year's judicial workload produced an unusually high number of appointments and that pay disparities are making recruitment and retention harder, particularly outside the Twin Cities.
The commission representative said Governor Walz made 33 judicial appointments in 2024 (29 to district courts, 2 to the court of appeals, 2 to the supreme court). For district-court vacancies the commission reviewed 262 applications, interviewed 120 candidates and forwarded 70 finalists. The presenter gave district-specific applicant counts (examples: 1st Judicial District 14 applicants, 2nd 23, 4th 25, 6th 7, 10th 25) and said the average number of applicants is roughly 22 in metro vacancies and about 11 in Greater Minnesota.
Speakers from the judicial branch and the Minnesota District Judges Association urged the council to consider pay increases to improve recruitment and retain sitting judges. An association representative and an academic coauthor who presented research recommended staged increases — examples cited included proposals such as 6% per year for judges and a broader compensation pool for court employees — and stressed that inflation has eroded purchasing power. "Judicial salaries have lost purchasing power when adjusted for inflation," the researcher said, and judges and staff face rising caseloads and safety concerns that influence decisions to leave the bench.
Several judges described the workload and retention pressures directly: they recounted heavier dockets, more time outside normal court hours, and in some cases judges leaving for county or municipal positions with higher pay and more manageable hours. One judge noted that pension rules penalize early retirement and that the cumulative compensation package (salary plus pension and benefits) matters in candidates' decisions.
Commission and judicial representatives committed to providing the council additional written materials, including diversity breakdowns of applicants by current job type (private practice, prosecutors, public defenders, other) and exit data for staff and judges to support a data-driven recommendation. The council asked for those supporting tables before its next meeting so members can weigh salary proposals against the state's fiscal outlook.
No formal vote or binding recommendation was taken at the meeting; the council scheduled follow-up discussion and requested written proposals from presenters and judicial HR staff.
