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. 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