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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT