ILNews

Bill expands merit selection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Legislature is considering a bill that changes the way Lake Superior county judges are chosen.

House Bill 1266, introduced by Reps. Steven Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, Ed Clere, R-New Albany, and Terry Goodin, D-Austin, mandates merit selection for the four Superior county judges, with those positions being placed on the ballot for a retention vote every six years. Currently, the judges are chosen by the electorate – the only four Lake Superior judges not currently subject to merit selection.

Charles Geyh Geyh

In an email to Indiana Lawyer, Julie Glade, president of the Lake County Bar Association said, “The LCBA is pleased and proud that our Legislature is taking a serious look at HB 1266. We are cautiously optimistic that the bill will become law, and if it does, we anticipate that the process of choosing our judiciary will be a much more uniform and much less costly endeavor. Expensive and time-consuming elections such as the Supreme Court justice race in Wisconsin will be avoided. This bill will also introduce cost savings to the community by allowing our courts to more effectively utilize support staff and conduct business more efficiently – something everybody values.”

But not everyone supports merit selection for county-level judges.

Professor Charles Geyh, associate dean for research and John F. Kimberling professor of law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, explained some of the reasons why people may be opposed to merit selection.

“The public position in opposition is, ‘We don’t want to give up our right to vote,’” Geyh said. His response to that argument is that people don’t vote for parole officers, prison wardens, and others in the criminal justice system that have a direct effect on the lives of people under their oversight.

“Don’t you want to delegate (judicial selection) to the people who want to take the time and energy to really get it right?” he said.

The retention vote, he added, allows the public to vote against judges whom they don’t feel are doing a good job, so merit selection doesn’t take away the public’s power.

Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, says he is in favor of HB1266, but he questions whether the current approach to retention voting makes sense.

“It’s very unfair that every six years … people walk into the voting booth and cannot make the decision because they don’t even recognize the names (of the judges on the ballot) or know that person,” he said. “So something needs to be done in terms of informing the electorate, to make them aware in advance that this is going to be on the ballot, and here’s some information to prepare.”

Geyh said that in rare cases, judges up for a retention vote may find themselves the target of political attacks.

He cited as an example Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, who in 1998 was the subject of an attack in which the opposition sent faxes throughout the state, urging the public to vote “no” on her retention. She lost her retention vote, and Geyh said that opponents of merit selection might argue that she would have been better able to defend herself against a negative campaign if she had been running in an election. But he said he thinks such attacks would be “pretty unlikely in most trial court settings.”

Jeffry Lind, president of the Indiana State Bar Association, said the bar supports merit selection in communities that are in favor of it, and that it seems merit selection does have public support in Lake County. He thinks opposition may be related to the fact that in Indiana, “Nobody likes to be told what to do.” And Geyh said that the word “merit” might cause some people concern, as it could be interpreted to mean judges who are merit-selected are somehow more qualified than those chosen by voters.

Geyh said that even when judges are chosen by the electorate, “More often than not, they run unopposed.” It’s one of the many reasons why he favors merit selection.

“I think it’s a good idea, and I think it really ought to be the statewide norm, rather than some patchwork system of judicial selection,” Geyh said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • amen
    The comment below is right on. Statism is not democracy. Appointed judges is statist.
  • elections are ok for everybody else why not judges
    We get to hear all the time about democracy this and that. Yet the powers that be seem to not like elections for judges. Interesting, isnt it? I think elections give a judge pause, and lead to judges that are more frank and honst about their opinions. There is a lot of fakery going on by judges who dont have to participate in elections, a lot of pretending that they dont have political opinions too. I say let the system acknowledge that judges are human more openly, let the public weigh in with elections, and not try and impose euphemistic solutions like "merit selection"-- ie, APPOINTMENT, where no real problem exists in the first place.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT