ILNews

Barnes used as excuse to challenge merit selection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

We surmised it would only be a matter of time before the clamor began, but we were a little taken aback at how few days passed after the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. State was issued before a legislator told us he would put together a proposal to change the merit selection process that’s been in place for our appellate courts for nearly 40 years.

Most of the comments reacting to the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes have been loud and opposed to the decision, which holds that Hoosiers no longer have the right to reasonably bar illegal entry to their homes by law enforcement officers. A rehearing petition in the case was filed earlier this month.

Regardless of how one views the ruling, to jump to the conclusion that we would somehow be better off with a judiciary subject to the whims of the loudest and best-funded portion of the electorate in a given election cycle strikes us as a profoundly flawed line of reasoning. Subjecting nominees for the appellate bench to an “advise and consent” process in the Legislature would be another form of that tortuous undertaking.

Yet that’s exactly what’s up for discussion.

State Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, told the newspaper earlier this month that he plans to revive a proposal he introduced six years ago that would require Senate confirmation of any state appellate judge or justice initially appointed or up for retention. His bill passed the Senate in 2005 but didn’t get support in the House, and the legislator said he’s been waiting for the best time to reintroduce the idea. He says he will do that during next session. Young said the Barnes ruling justifies why judges must be held more accountable than they are now.

“To have a judge in Indiana basically be serving for life without anyone reviewing any decisions they’ve made, that’s just not right and it goes against public policy. At least this way, a judiciary committee would be able to review the actions and that would be a more practical way to do things than the meaningless retention process we have now,” Young said.

The retention process is hardly meaningless, because, in fact, if voters were so inclined, enough of them could vote “no” during the retention vote to turn the judge or justice from the bench.

We have been troubled by the willingness of some demonstrators to call Barnes’ author, Justice Steven David, an “enemy of the Constitution,” as one sign-carrying remonstrator alleged at a protest of the ruling in late May. It is ludicrous to suggest that Justice David, who served 23 years in the Army Reserves and who was mobilized twice since Sept. 11, is an enemy of the document that serves as the bedrock of our form of government.

Here’s a comment from a reader via the newspaper’s website, theindianalawyer.com. This particular reader takes issue with the Indiana State Bar Association’s statement in support of judicial independence, which was made shortly after the Barnes decision began making headlines.

“The ISBA needs to stop advocating against the people. Judges selected by the state and its politicians need to be accountable to the people. Electing judges in our counties works very well. They are accountable. Without accountability to the people violence will be the peoples only option. Read the Declaration of Independence.”

We’re going to go on record again in pointing out that electing judges in our counties works well if you happen to agree with the particular judge running for election, or you have contributed enough funds to a judicial candidate to believe that once on the bench, the judge will see things your way.

Some point to our neighbors in Wisconsin and shudder, wondering whether the alleged non-partisan judicial smackdown currently going on in their Supreme Court could happen here.

It could and indeed it did, though perhaps not to the extreme degree it is currently ongoing to the north.

Justice Walter Myers Jr. was elected to the Indiana Supreme Court in 1962, taking the bench in January of the following year. He replaced Justice Arch N. Bobbitt, who was ousted over his decision in a case regarding constitutional limitation on cities’ power to let bonds for construction projects. Indiana continued to elect appellate judges for another 8 years.

“What’s clear to me is that having an isolated incident form the basis for moving away from a selection system is stupid,” Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charlie Geyh, a national expert on judicial selection, told an Indiana Lawyer reporter recently. “This seems like an excuse de jour for changing the system, and calling for that or even a recall is a very risky proposition to even consider because it usurps the power of what the courts are supposed to do.”

And what the courts are supposed to do is have the freedom and independence to uphold the law, not whatever will ensure a jurist’s electability in the next election cycle.

We keep going back to this comment from LewisWagner partner John Trimble. He served for three years on the Judicial Nominating Commission.

“I believe that all lawyers strongly support the right of all citizens to criticize the government, but the public has lost complete touch with the role of the judiciary in our society. It is not the role of judges to do what is popular at the moment.”

Should we allow legislators to “fix” the current method we have of selecting our appellate court, doing what’s popular at the moment will be of the utmost importance to jurists looking to keep their jobs.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Synopsis of Article
    We can not trust the electorate. The electorate might do things we can not control.
    I will take my county system of electing judges any day. Men who could care less about Indianapolis and its politics and who they rub shoulder with.

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT