1982 case shows election issue

February 19, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
As lawyers, you understand the legal nuances and issues in cases that appear before our appellate courts. The general public often does not. They don’t understand why convictions are overturned or cases are remanded for retrial.

Now imagine the power the general public could have in determining our Supreme Court’s makeup if House Joint Resolution 9 survives, whether in its current form or rolled into another bill. You don’t think there could be something that would rile up people enough that they would protest a judge’s election? Let’s flashback to 1984, thanks to an article from The New York Times.

When then-Chief Justice Richard M. Givan was up for retention in 1984, a group of activists in support of rights for handicapped people called for voters to not retain him. The reason: the high court refused to intervene in a Monroe County case (ruled on then by current Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker) in which the court ruled the parents of a deformed baby with Down’s Syndrome had the right to follow doctors’ advice and withhold medical treatment.

The man organizing the group “Remember Baby Doe – Retire Judge Givan Committee” admitted he hadn’t read any of the chief justice’s opinions and wasn’t familiar with his legal work. Instead of understanding that the Supreme Court wasn’t asked to rule on the merits of the case, only on the question of whether a lower court judge had jurisdiction on the matter, the activists were blinded by their beliefs and lack of comprehension of the legal issues before the high court.

The chief justice is quoted in the article as saying he was thinking of forming his own committee to counter the negative campaign against him.

This is a prime example of why we’re unnerved at the prospect of our Supreme Court being elected instead of chosen based on merit and then given the opportunity to be retained. We need justices on the court who understand the law and rule to the best of their abilities, not people who are elected because they have the biggest election coffers or most support from an activist group.

It’s true with our current retention system that if an activist group is angry enough with a justice, they may be able to garner enough support to oust one with whom they didn’t agree, but that has yet to happen. Honestly, most people couldn’t even name one of our justices, let alone be familiar with their legal rulings.

If you remember this controversy surrounding Justice Given and the Baby Doe case, or any other controversial cases that led to groups trying to fight the retention of Indiana’s Supreme Court justices, feel free to comment here or e-mail reporter Mike Hoskins at mhoskins@ibj.com. We’d like to explore this topic in a future issue of Indiana Lawyer.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I have less problems with electing our Supreme Court than most. Yes, we have seen problems in other states where justices face the kind of the problems faced by Givan in a retention vote. However, no retention vote has come close to unseating a Supreme Court justice.

    We had elected appellate court justices and judges for over 100 years. We had a fairly regular turnover of personnel. How much of this was due to poor pay and how much was due to voting is something I was never able to discover.

    If you go back to the 1851 constitutional convention debates, the same arguments against electing appellate judges were made then. What was never made then or now is this: electing judges ought to change the dynamic of judicial review as they will no less a popular branch of government as the legislative.

    What we should complain about are two things: 1) the necessity of doing this now, and 2) that any election be non-partisan.

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
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT