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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT