ILNews

Indiana attorney fights Alaska's merit selection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Terre Haute attorney has filed a federal suit challenging the merit-selection system in Alaska, arguing the state bar association has unconstitutional control over the judicial nominating commission and takes away the people's right to choose their judges.

Filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, the complaint from two of Alaska's registered voters and a former judicial candidate alleges that their 14th Amendment right to vote is being violated by how the state's merit-selection system is set up. The complaint Hinger v. Carpeneti, et al., No. 3:2009-CV-00136, comes following the April announcement that Alaska Justice Robert Eastaugh is retiring Nov. 2 and the nominating council and governor must appoint a successor.

In Alaska, a seven-member Judicial Selection Council makes recommendations to the governor, who makes the final decision on a judge or justice. Of those seven members, the chief justice is the chair while three are non-lawyers appointed by the governor and confirmed by lawmakers, and three are lawyers appointed by the Alaska Bar Association's governing board.

The merit-selection system used in Alaska is similar to what's used in Indiana, with a few differences. The governor's three non-lawyer appointments must get legislative confirmation in Alaska, while that isn't required in Indiana. The Alaska Bar Association's governing board appoints the attorneys generally, while in Indiana lawyers in each of the three appellate courts' geographic areas choose a representative. Merit selection is also used for the Alaskan trial courts, where in Indiana it's used solely at the appellate levels and trial courts in Lake and St. Joseph counties.

In the complaint, Bopp argues that the plaintiffs are excluded from voting for a controlling majority of the bar association's governing board.

"While the Board of Governors may serve other functions that substantially and disproportionately affect only bar association members, in so far as the Board is given the power to select members of the Alaska Judicial Council, the election of Board members must comport with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause," the complaint says. "Because it does not, the power exercised by the three attorney members of the council violates the equal protection clause with respect to Plaintiffs' right to vote."

The complaint and an accompanying injunction motion asks the District Court to declare the state constitution provisions unconstitutional, either on their face or as applied to the current impending vacancy. The motion also asks that the chief justice and remaining four members of the Alaska Judicial Council be stopped from following a requirement that a vote be unanimous among the remaining four members.

A copy of the full complaint and preliminary injunction motion are posted online at the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT