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

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT