ILNews

House passes St. Joseph judicial election bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a historically notable vote, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill that would elect St. Joseph Superior judges rather than stick with a merit-selection and retention system in place for 35 years.

The 88-3 vote came about 4 p.m. Thursday on House Bill 1491, authored by Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka. Voting against the bill were attorney Reps. Ed Delaney, D-Indianapolis, Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, and Rep. Suzanne Crouch, R-Evansville.

St. Joseph is one of two counties where Superior Court judges are chosen by a local nominating commission on their judicial merits, appointed by the governor, and then face voter retention in elections. The remaining 90 Hoosier counties use the election method, with two - Allen and Vanderburgh - using non-partisan elections; Marion County has a slating process, as well.

Fry's proposal sets up non-partisan elections every six years. Similar legislation has been pitched for years, but this is the first time it's made it out of committee and subsequently to the full House and passed. Fry noted that it's the first time in recent memory that any of the county's members have together supported the issue.

"Perhaps by making them stand for general election, our judges will realize that they need to be accountable and that their courts are not private kingdoms," Fry said.

Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, amended the bill earlier in the week to restrict and cap campaign contributions of any judicial candidate. Her amendment prohibits a Superior judge candidate from receiving any money from political party or political action committee, and bans them from getting more than $500 from one person, $1,000 from any two or more people from a single law firm, or more than $10,000 in total contributions.

Aside from those opposing votes, Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary - who in the past has proposed similar legislation focusing on Lake County's system - was the only person who stepped up to the podium to question Fry. He asked that since Fry was the person who "led the charge" for the St. Joe bill, if he'd commit to doing the same next year for Lake County. Fry said he would; Brown voted for the legislation.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which is expected to offer less support for the legislation. No senators have signed on as sponsors. Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, who is also an attorney, declined to comment on the legislation, but Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and also the interim summer panel that was against the idea, said he is opposed to the bill.

"Why do we even have a courts' commission if we do things like this?" the veteran senator asked, referring to the House ignoring the recommendation made last fall against changing the system.

"I don't know yet how I feel about statewide merit selection for trial courts, but in a county where it's been working for so long we aren't going to turn around and go back down that path," he said. "I'm not saying I like every judge in Indiana, but it sets a terrible precedent to change an entire system if you don't like a particular judge's decision based on the law. I find that a bit offensive."

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT