Nelson the obvious choice for Supreme Court

This year's Supreme Court race between Justice Jim Nelson and legislator Cindy Younkin gives voters an easy choice. Montanans need hard-working legal minds on the bench, not legally inexperienced politicians. The choice demands Justice Nelson.

Justice Nelson has served 12 years on Montana's highest court, and 20 years before that as a Cut Bank lawyer. Younkin only graduated from law school a few years before Justice Nelson was appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican Gov. Marc Racicot, who recognized Nelson as one of Montana's hardest working and smartest lawyers.

Since then, Younkin's been a Bozeman legislator first, and a narrowly practicing water lawyer second. Not counting the recent malpractice case filed against her by one of her own clients, Younkin's closest contact with the Supreme Court was years ago as a clerk for former Chief Justice Jean Turnage. Now, Turnage publicly endorses Nelson, not Younkin, as the best choice for Montanans.

Younkin's Web site claims that she "will bring balance to a court which is in need of fairness." But Younkin is so inexperienced as a lawyer that she is not qualified to decide most of the cases that come before the Supreme Court, much less Montana's most complicated legal questions. The Supreme Court requires experience with all facets of the law, and the legal intelligence and judgment to assess Montana's best judges, lawyers, and legislators. Political belief or experience is not enough.

Jim Nelson's only promise is that he will support and defend the rights guaranteed to you and me by the Montana constitution. That's what we must demand of judges: commitment to the constitution, fairness, and the ability and experience to decide difficult legal questions. Younkin offers none of the above. Her qualifications and agenda belong at the

State Capitol, not the Montana Supreme Court.

John Lacey

Whitefish