ILNews

Former justice discusses merit selection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

During a visit to South Bend today, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pushed a message that merit selection is the best way to ensure an independent judiciary, though her words come at a time when state lawmakers are close to scrapping that very system in the county she visited.

"I wish it were a happier occasion, because I feel we are celebrating a merit system that may be at its end in St. Joseph County," Justice O'Connor said.

She was referring to House Bill 1491, which proposes ending merit selection for judicial elections of Superior judges in St. Joseph County and is on the verge of passage by lawmakers.

What impact, if any, the former justice's visit could have on the legislation isn't clear but it must happen quickly.

The 25-minute speech entitled "The Importance of Judicial Independence and Our Courts" came at a luncheon sponsored by the St. Joseph County Bar Association. About 550 people attended to hear her speak.

As the first female justice on the nation's highest court, she served from 1981 until her retirement in 2006. Since leaving the Supreme Court, former Justice O'Connor has traveled the country promoting the virtues of an independent judicial branch and speaking in support of merit selection. Her comments in South Bend echoed the views she's expressed at law schools and bar events nationally: that electing judges undermines the independence of the judiciary, especially because of the role of money in the campaigns.

"Judges would be forced to balance the law on one hand and job security on the other hand," Justice O'Connor said. "Ignoring the judicial pressure of elections is like ignoring a crocodile in your bathtub."

She said misunderstanding is driving the modern attacks on merit selection and the legal profession needs to better educate youth on the judiciary's role.

"The only way to stop this onslaught in my opinion, county by county, legislature by legislature, is to build an informed citizenry who understands the role of our judiciary," she said.

Indiana State Bar Association president Bill Jonas was grateful that Justice O'Connor could visit the county, especially at this time.

"The game is not over. We'll play to the final whistle," he said referring to HB 1491.

The former justice's visit comes a week after the Indiana Senate voted 35-15 in favor of HB 1491, authored by Rep. Craig Fry, R-Mishawaka and sponsored by Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso. The House had overwhelmingly supported the measure in February. State lawmakers were invited, but St. Joseph County Bar Association leaders weren't sure any attended because of the ongoing session.

Amended from its original form, the bill is now being hammered out in conference committee and could be forwarded to the governor for review by the April 29 deadline, if the originating legislative body agrees to the revisions that would create a new three-judge panel for the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Following her speech, Justice O'Connor answered a handful of questions from the audience. One person from Lake County said they were worried about the judicial election legislation and had worked to try to stop the bill at the House, Senate, and conference committee stages. He then asked the former justice what plan B should be?

"I don't know. You'll have to deal with that yourselves..." the former justice replied. "Maybe find some legislators that have a different view."

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT