I think this is the only contested District Court race in either Hennepin County or Ramsey County. (There is a contested race for the Supreme Court, which I wrote about here.) On the ballot:
Pat Diamond (incumbent)
Ngozi Akubuike
As a general rule, for judicial races, I have a strong bias towards the incumbent, which I talk about in more detail here. With a judicial challenge, I expect candidates to make a case not only for themselves, but against the person they’re running against. Sometimes, that’s not hard: in 2018, one of the judges facing a challenge was doing so in large part because he had been arrested for drunk driving. (He went on to lose.)
Pat Diamond (incumbent)
Pat Diamond was appointed in 2012 by Governor Dayton. Reading his website, he looks like exactly the sort of judge I want to see on the bench: he’s helped to establish “treatment courts,” which provide diversion instead of incarceration for people with substance abuse or mental health problems. Prior to his current assignment he worked in Juvenile Court, and he notes as a major accomplishment: “We have reduced the number of children in pre-trial custody by 45 percent and reduced the average stay by 27 percent. We have also reduced the number of children ultimately sentenced to custody out of home by 85 percent. These are some of the most significant reductions in our country, ultimately leading to closure of Boys Totem Town, an outdated and now unnecessary facility that had been operating for more than 100 years, locking up young males, disproportionately children of color.”
When I looked on through the PiPress archive for news stories about him as a judge, I noticed that as a general pattern he gives sentences on the light side of recommendations (which I favor strongly). Most recently he was in the news for chewing out the DA’s office for failing to disclose during a trial that two police officers they’d called to give testimony were being investigated for lying in a different case. He did not, however, toss the conviction. (He said that the rest of the evidence was sufficient to convict: “That evidence included squad car video, some of Peguse’s own testimony and the testimony of a third officer who responded to the scene” — Peguse was on trial for hitting someone with his SUV on purpose. I couldn’t find any other coverage of the trial.)
According to the info on his Judicial District page, he was a prosecutor before becoming a judge, and he volunteers at a Unitarian Universalist summer camp.
Ngozi Akubuike is an immigrant from Nigeria, and I’d say that the most impressive fact about her is that she went to law school twice, once there and then again after immigrating. On her website, she says that she was once homeless with a baby, and had to beg to get food. (My father wanted to nitpick: in most countries other than the US, a law degree is more like a BS or a BA. She got an undergraduate degree in Nigeria that was a law degree she could use for legal practice in Nigeria; when she moved to the US, she went to law school. At Mitchell, finishing in 2000.)
When I e-mailed Ngozi Akubuike to ask why she was running specifically against Pat Diamond — in other words, what’s your case against him? — she responded that they had considered “a number of factors, including lack of diversity. […] I believe we need diversity on the bench. The lack of diversity is not a full representation of our community. […] Moreover, to my knowledge, there is currently no black female judge in Ramsey County.”
So: she’s right that there doesn’t appear to be a Black woman currently serving as a judge in Ramsey County.
I asked about endorsements; she said, “we have some endorsements. However, we are careful in seeking endorsements given that this is a judicial race. We are running on the platform of equity and humane justice. Justice, at times, is not blind when we allow certain interests in judicial races.” The issue of endorsements and bias is legit, but Pat Diamond solves it by relying heavily on retired judges. I consider endorsements important because it means people with relevant qualifications are willing to vouch for you. Judicial races are hard enough to find information on as a layperson. This is part of why I’m biased towards incumbents: most incumbents got appointed via a process that includes a screening committee that interviewed people, got recommendations, etc.
Popping in with an edit because my father also complained that I didn’t provide any information on what sort of law Ngozi practices. Her website describes her practice with the following: “Upon graduation, Ngozi served as a prosecutor, handling civil commitments, child support, forfeiture and criminal appeals cases, and advising the county. She also trained law enforcement officers on effective forfeiture. She served the State of Minnesota as ADA Coordinator and Legal Manager. In those capacities, she established the legal department in the Chemical & Mental Health Division, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice, EEOC, and the Council on Disability. She ensured that the state and the counties fulfilled their obligations; regarding the provision of reasonable accommodation, conducted investigations, advised the executives, worked with the BCA, the Supreme Court, and the Department of Corrections in advancing legislation to keep Minnesotans safe. Ngozi worked with the attorney general’s office in handling cases, mediated cases, appeared before legislative committees, trained judges on writing appropriate orders regarding psychotropic medications, representing the State in court in matters the AG’s office could not. Ngozi represented the state as the Legal Division Director at NASMHD, and was part of the state’s Senior Legal Policy group.”
I have no idea how to sum this up. This is one of the reasons I went looking for her LinkedIn — I was hoping for a more straightforward resume that would give job titles and dates instead of a narrative description of work she’s done. This article provides a little more specific information about her work, although it also says that Leonardo Castro is the only Ramsey County judge who’s a person of color, which is not even accurate relative to the people currently on the ballot.)
If you’ve read all the way to the bottom: I took the time to look over on Donors Choose for some Minneapolis public school teachers who could use some financial help during These Difficult Times and in particularly with distance learning. The three small projects I found have ALL FUNDED, hurray! But the big one still has a long way to go:
Ms. Stone is a teacher at Cityview Elementary in North Minneapolis. She will be teaching third graders this year, and to help them succeed with distance learning, she is requesting a set of Chromebooks for her class. To equip this class of children with the basic technology they will need for distance learning will require another $5,523 to be raised by October 3rd. Can my readers raise that much? If not, can they at least get it to within sight of the finish line so a corporation or foundation will be inspired to swoop in and match our donations? I think it’s worth trying.
(I don’t have a patreon or a ko-fi but I take a lot of satisfaction from seeing projects fund after I point people at them. Please donate!)
Will Tell Stories For Food 
Me. Akubuike has a bigger problem: She is not eligible to serve in the office she is running for. In Minnesota, judges are required to be “learned in the law.“ Minnesota courts have consistently held over the years that this means the judge must be licensed to practice law in the state of Minnesota. She is not licensed and shouldn’t even be on the ballot. Someone running for a job that requires upholding the law ought to know the law.
SHE DOESN’T HAVE A LAW LICENSE?
Is this not her?
https://mars.courts.state.mn.us/AttorneyDetail.aspx?attyID=0299789
Thank you. I had searched the site under the name she uses in her campaign, Ngozi Akubuike, and got no results.
Thank you so much for this — I rely on the info you provide when trying to make informed decisions when casting my vote, and so appreciate the perspective and transparency, even and especially when you outline your personal bias/thinking and why. I appreciate this site as a resource.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention these pieces of endorsements for her by showing exerts from her campaign page:
– “In 2007, the State of Minnesota recognized Ngozi as an Emerging Leader.” – that seems like a state wide endorsement.
-“She was on the Dean’s List and received awards from the Minnesota Black Lawyers Association, as well as a writing award from the Late Justice Donald P. Lay, and 8th Circuit appeals senior justice.” – that feels like she is getting endorsement from the dean that she is a strong academic, an endorsement from the Minnesota Black lawyers Association have given her awards so it feels as though they endorse her since they recognize her for her work, Justice Lay seems to also recognize her work.
Another important point is it seems to me that she is for the people. She genuinely cares about the people. – “Ngozi is actively involved in the community, and is passionate about justice, equity, and responsibility. She runs a food shelf, distributes coats and food to the homeless, distributes toys to the needy, and mentors youth throughout the State.”
“Endorsement” in this context specifically means that she is endorsed by a person or entity for this office, and trying to stretch awards for leadership from 2007 into relevant “endorsements” is a stretch.
The link on the HAVEN site works fine. Perhaps you have a browser issue or the location in which you are trying to get it from is limiting access to most internet sites? In any case, it feels like you had some bias against Ngozi from the start. The list of qualifications is actually quite extensive. It seems to me she has a wider array of experience than most which is huge positive. It feels like you are simply nit-picking presentation and not actual content. Just my $0.02
Yes: in judicial races I have a bias for the incumbent. I have a post explaining this which I linked at the top of the post.
Understood. Ultimately I think we are fortunate in this case to have two strong candidates and I like them both. This is actually the hardest decision for me on the ballot by far.
What does the “Get Quote” link do when you click it, exactly? Ordinarily a “get quote” button would get you, basically, a bid for a service. In the context of a charitable organization it seems very out of place, but yeah, I checked again and it does nothing when I click it. I’m running Chrome, which is … pretty standard.
Update: I tried it from the Microsoft browser and it gave me a pop-up, so yes, this may be browser-dependent.
“Get Quote” is still a really odd presentation for a button on a charity’s website. “Get Help” would make sense. “Get Quote” just doesn’t. Is this nitpicky? Maybe? I went to her LinkedIn because I was hoping to find a chronological resume of her legal experience, which would have been really useful. Instead of talking about any of the stuff she mentions on her campaign site, it basically lists directing this charity as her one job since 2012. And the charity has an incredibly patched-together, weird website with stock art and a “here’s how to make us your Amazon Smile recipient” and not much else. They don’t say, “are you [target of group]? Here’s how we can help you.” They don’t say, “we helped [pseudonym] do XYZ, here’s her testimonial.” They don’t say, “we helped [number] of people in [year].” Everything about Haven’s web page suggests that it’s not actually a going concern, and yet that’s her primary credential on her LinkedIn.
It looks like she has a sort of “disclaimer” about New Life Family services on her website. Was that there when you wrote this post?
It was not! Very interesting. (There’s at least one other candidate who’s made adjustments after my post went up — the “no more heroes, no more whores” weed guy running for Senate, who’s changed “whores” to “herds.”)
(At least, I don’t think it was! I’ve been known to miss stuff, but it looks like she’s added/changed a fair amount of stuff since I wrote about the race — there are some newer pictures that I don’t remember seeing before, for example.)
Naomi – Thank you for your very thoughtful, thorough work. The judicial races do not get enough attention. I agree that incumbent judicial candidates should get the benefit of the doubt because they have gone through a vetting process. I also don’t think that voters should vote against incumbents just because they have made unpopular decisions. Sometimes the law requires that, for example when judges uphold minority rights under the law. But sometimes incumbents fall short and should be unseated. The judicial elections are an important escape valve. Thanks again. Karen Cole
Naomi – I appreciate all the research you do. I know it takes time, and you do a solid job of laying out your thought processes and reasons behind your decisions. Like everything these days, individuals need to employ critical thinking, examine sources, and make their own decisions. The information you provide is an extremely helpful tool as I work through the ballot and make informed choices.
WOW, was this a helpful blog post! I also like both candidates, and this has been the most difficult option on the ballot for me. I wouldn’t have been able to make a well-informed decision without your thorough research and detailed comparisons. Thank you so much, Ms. Kritzer!