Critics blast Marion County judge-selection proposals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County must change how it selects its 36 Superior Court judges because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Indianapolis’ stacked-deck judicial elections. But judging by reaction to General Assembly plans backed by key lawmakers and stakeholders, the jury’s out on whether the proposal puts politics ahead of performance.

Geyh Geyh

House and Senate bills that propose creating a Marion County judicial selection system are “a nakedly partisan system,” said Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, a nationally renowned expert on judicial selection. “This isn’t like any merit-selection system I’ve ever seen.”

Geyh said calling the proposal merit selection is a misnomer because the committee as proposed would be dominated by political appointees. The legislation also would require that no more than half the Marion County bench be of the same political party.

Marion factbox“It gives you the worst of both worlds,” he said, providing voters no direct election of judges, yet “institutionalizing partisanship” so that merit and qualifications are secondary considerations to the party affiliation of candidates.

Nevertheless, Senate Bill 79 and House Bill 1036 have the endorsement of key lawmakers and stakeholders including Marion County judges, the Indianapolis Bar Association and local and state chambers of commerce. “It is a consensus plan,” said Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch, a Democratic judge who said judges in both parties favored the plan. She said under the plan voters would have a say when judges are on the ballot for retention in future years.

“Getting all those people to sign off on this legislation was a tight-wire act,” said Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, whose SB 79 mirrors HB 1036, authored by House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Danville. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, is among co-authors of Steuerwald’s bill, raising the likelihood of passage where Republicans hold a supermajority.

Merritt Merritt

“I think the membership of the commission is very well-balanced … exemplary,” Steuerwald said. He said balance between various stakeholders was a crucial consideration so that no particular parties or interests could control the committee.

“It was just one of those situations where we really had to have everyone at the table and just encourage balance,” Merritt said. “I was really heartened that everybody endorsed it.”

ricafort-nissa-mug.jpg Ricafort

IndyBar President Nissa Ricafort said the organization has called for merit selection for years and supports the legislation. “I don’t know that there is a perfect solution or structure for merit selection,” she said. “At the end of the day, we believe a lot of effort has been placed on trying to create a committee that includes members from several different constituencies.”

As proposed, eight of the 14 members of the Marion County judicial selection committee would be political appointees. Presidents of four bar organizations would appoint attorney members, and the committee also would include a Court of Appeals judge and be chaired by an Indiana Supreme Court justice. The panel would vet candidates for judicial vacancies and recommend three from which the governor would choose.


greg taylor Taylor

Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, has been an outspoken critic of past Marion County judicial reform efforts and saw little to like in the current plan. He favors direct election of judges and questioned why lawmakers continue to insist on party balance on the bench for predominantly Democratic Marion County. “We don’t have this dialogue going on in (predominantly Republican) Hamilton, Boone, or the donut counties,” he said. “For some reason, because the Democrats are winning in Marion County, you’ve got to have some kind of Republican equalization, if you will, of representation on the bench.

“The 7th Circuit made it clear you can’t dilute the votes of the citizens, and that’s exactly what that does,” he said of the partisan-balance language in the legislation. Taylor said he’d rather see legislation include provisions that the bench reflect the racial makeup of the community it serves. “To me, that’s what we should be looking at. Unfortunately, we have people who don’t believe that.”

The constitution of the proposed committee differs from merit-selection commissions in Allen, Lake and St. Joseph counties. There, panels are equally divided between lawyer and lay members and chaired by a Supreme Court justice. Ricafort said the proposed Marion County system would meet the bar’s focus of ensuring attorneys who know and practice before the judges will have a voice in judicial selection.

welch-heather-2014mug Welch

Welch disagreed that the proposed system would place partisan considerations first. She said because Indianapolis is home to the state’s largest court system and statutory venue for judicial review of many state actions, the committee needed to include more stakeholders than those of other Indiana counties.

“There is no plan that does not have some degree of politics involved in it,” she said. “The objective of this proposal is we want to have a diverse, talented and qualified judiciary.”

Steuerwald said political parties would have less influence under the proposed plan than under the former partisan-balance judicial election statute struck down in 2015 by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The proposed system is “not controlled by the political parties anywhere near like it was before,” he said.

Steuerwald Steuerwald

Marion Superior judges had been elected under a statute that equally divided judgeships between Democrats and Republicans. The invalidated election law facilitated a system whereby both parties “slated” ballot positions with judicial candidates who made five-figure financial contributions to their respective parties. Each party filled their ballots after primary elections with the exact number of judges to be elected. The 7th Circuit invalidated the system, ruling it didn’t provide voters a meaningful general election vote.

“This is recasting the slate system without the slate,” Geyh said. He also discounted arguments that because Indianapolis was the capital city with exclusive jurisdiction in many state matters that a unique system is warranted. He said other capital cities in states around the nation have found workable solutions with traditional merit-selection systems where lawyers and lay members work together to nominate the most qualified jurists without regard to politics.

“It befuddles me why they can’t think seriously about a legitimate merit-selection system,” he said, “and try to avoid these eccentric hybrids that are just going to create mischief.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, said at IL deadline he intends to introduce a different judicial-selection bill this week. He said committee membership in his proposal would resemble that of the other legislation, but with key differences. His bill would stipulate no more than half the members could be attorneys, and the bill would provide avenues for public input on judicial nominees. He said his bill also would include a provision for partisan balance on the bench.

Public input is crucial if voters are giving up election of judges, Young said. “Anything else I think is a slap in the face to the citizens of Marion County,” he said.•


  • Geyh Is Correct
    Still not sure why the state legislature feels the need to be represented in this judicial selection committee. Moreover, if one really wants to remove partisan politics from the process, then get rid of the county's political leaders (both Republican and Democrat) from the committee. Perhaps it's time that Marion County's judicial elections become completely non-partisan--no Rs or Ds after any judicial candidate's name. If Republicans can't hold onto power in Marion County (mostly because of poor leadership), but they still think they're entitled to give their folks a shot at the bench, then the best way to do so would be to quit coming up with schemes like this one. Open, non-partisan, judicial election of judges if the powers that be can't come up with a "merit" selection system that removes politics from the equation.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  2. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: Back to the Founders! MAGA!

  3. Science is showing us the root of addiction is the lack of connection (with people). Criminalizing people who are lonely is a gross misinterpretation of what data is revealing and the approach we must take to combat mental health. Harsher crimes from drug dealers? where there is a demand there is a market, so make it legal and encourage these citizens to be functioning members of a society with competitive market opportunities. Legalize are "drugs" and quit wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous incarceration. The system is destroying lives and doing it in the name of privatized profits. To demonize loneliness and destroy lives in the land of opportunity is not freedom.

  4. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust: When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  5. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.