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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT