ILNews

House committee split, justice election bill stuck

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation aimed at changing how the Indiana Supreme Court justices are chosen hasn't gotten enough support to make it out of committee for now, getting a split vote from lawmakers that means it won't be going to the full House for consideration.

The Government and Regulatory Reform Committee added to its agenda this morning House Joint Resolution 9, which would amend the state's Constitution to require that justices be elected instead of being chosen based on merit and later retained by voters. Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawka, proposed the resolution in January to put the makeup of the high court in the public's hands and provide more accountability.

Currently, the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission chooses state appellate judges through a merit-selection process and submits finalists' names to the governor, who makes the final decision. Voters can then cast ballots periodically after that to retain or boot that judge. The system's been in place since 1971, and two counties - St. Joseph and Lake - followed suit for Superior judges in 1973.

As detailed in HJR9, the General Assembly would divide Indiana into three districts, with one justice being elected by voters in each of those jurisdictions and two justices being chosen by all voters statewide.

Fry's measure was originally referred to the Committee on Courts and Criminal Code, but was reassigned to the reform committee on Thursday and added to the agenda this week.

But by a 5-5 vote, the legislative committee has voted not to send the measure to the full House at this point. Two members were absent and didn't vote, while at least two voting that it move on pointed out they weren't opposed to merit selection and might vote against HJR9 on the floor. The deadline for committee action is Thursday.

Three people testified before the committee against the measure - Indiana State Bar Association legislative counsel Paje Felts, Terre Haute attorney Stephen Williams who sits on the Judicial Nominating Commission, and Indianapolis attorney Tom Schultz who is president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

Felts told lawmakers that the ISBA helped change the system decades ago, and that Indiana is looked to as a national model of how to put justices on the bench.

Williams focused on the nominating commission end, while Schultz told lawmakers that changing the selection system could have a negative impact on the economy because businesses might not want to locate to a state where multi-million dollar judicial elections are being held.

Committee chair Rep. John Bartlett, D-Indianapolis, voted in support of sending this resolution to the full House for consideration because it's controversial and should be discussed, whether the merit selection system works or not.

"This is a time of transparency and accountability, and it's extremely important that taxpayers.... be able to have a say," he said.

Rep. Phil Hinkle, R-Indianapolis, recalled visiting another state back in the 1970s and seeing television coverage of 18 prosecutor candidates being interviewed - full of negative ads and indications of large amounts of money being raised.

"We start having mudslinging and it's going to hurt the quality of our candidates," he said. "I don't see why we'd go there."

Before voting against the resolution, another lawmaker said, "I don't want a Democrat judge or a Republican judge; I just want a judge."

Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, and Rep. John Barnes, D-Indianapolis, both indicated that while they wanted more discussion by lawmakers, they'd likely vote against the measure if it reached the full House.

Since it's a constitutional amendment, HJR9 would have to be voted on in two consecutive General Assembly sessions and then ratified a majority of state voters before it would become law.

While Fry's resolution hasn't gotten enough committee support, another of his proposals - House Bill 1491 that calls for electing St. Joseph Superior judges - has momentum, making it out of committee unanimously and the House voting 88-3 in favor of it on Feb. 12. The bill has gone on to the Senate for consideration, with Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, signing on as a sponsor.

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT