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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT