ILNews

Despite constitutional concerns, judicial nomination bill advances

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Proposed changes to the panel that recommends judges for the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals advanced to the House floor Monday, but not before some lawmakers said they reserved judgment on whether the measure was constitutional.

Senate Bill 103 passed the House Judiciary Committee on an 8-3 vote. The bill would change how nonattorney members of the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission are appointed. The panel interviews Court of Appeals and Supreme Court candidates and prepares a list of three finalists from which the governor selects an appointee.

Currently, the governor appoints nonattorney members to the seven-member commission, whose members also constitute the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications that receives and investigates ethics complaints against judges.

The governor still would appoint nonattorney members under legislation sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brent Steele, R-Bedford, but a governor’s choice under SB 103 would be from a list recommended by the Senate president pro tem, the House speaker, and the House and Senate minority leaders.

Because Indiana’s merit-selection system for the judiciary is enshrined in Article 7 of the state Constitution, questions have arisen as to whether the commission may be altered by an act of the Legislature. Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, voted for the measure in committee but said he wanted to investigate its constitutionality before a floor vote. At least one other lawmaker who voted the bill out of committee did so with the same caveat.

Steele said the measure had been vetted by a prominent constitutional attorney who said the bill would not run afoul of the constitution. He said SB 103 would give the legislative branch a “thumb on the scale” as it pertains to Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices.

Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, asked Steele whether there had been a problem with the commission members the governor had been picking. That wasn’t a factor, Steele said. “There’s always been a desire to let legislators have their say,” he said.

DeLaney, Reps. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, and Vernon Smith, D-Gary, voted against the bill.

Article 7, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution defines the duties and composition of the commission. Attorneys in each of the three Court of Appeals geographical districts elect three lawyer members, and the panel is chaired by the chief justice or his designee. The constitution says, “The Governor shall appoint to the commission three citizens, not admitted to the practice of law.”

Steele said he’s comfortable the bill doesn’t interfere with that language, even though he told Bauer that the bill would restrict the governor’s choice to four names recommended by Statehouse leaders.

A message seeking comment from the office of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was not immediately returned.

SB 103 also would reduce the time a governor has to fill a commission vacancy from 60 days to 30 days after receiving the list of recommended candidates.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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