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 expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT