ILNews

Indiana attorney is still battling merit-selection in courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Terre Haute attorney has been dealt another blow in his national effort to challenge judicial merit-selection systems in favor of popular elections.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Kansas tossed a suit filed in August by Indiana attorney Jim Bopp on behalf of four residents challenging that state’s system of choosing judges through an attorney-citizen nominating commission – a system similar to what the Hoosier judiciary uses to select its appellate judges. The plaintiffs claimed the system is unconstitutional because it gives lawyers too much power and violates the voting rights of other residents.

The suit challenges the nine-person nominating commission that fills vacancies on the Kansas Supreme Court and state appellate courts, and in which lawyers elect five of those nine positions.

In a 13-page order in Robert Dool, et al. v. Anne Burke, et al., No. 10-1286, U.S. Judge Monti Belot ruled that the court recognizes this a “hot topic” brought by Bopp and some of the same parties looking to replace merit selection with popular elections or appointments by elected officials.

“It is not this court’s job to weigh in on the debate except to point out that Kansas voters approved the present system and the absence of evidence that Kansas’ system has not worked and will not continue to work to ensure that qualified individuals are appointed to the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Court of Appeals,” he wrote.

He noted in a footnote that Kansas voters retained all four justices of the Kansas Supreme Court up for retention by margins of 60 percent or better on Nov. 2.

The judge in September had rejected a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction, refusing to block Kansas from filling a vacancy on its highest court.

Bopp has also challenged the merit-selection system in Alaska with a similar suit challenging that system in place for the appellate and trial courts. 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.

A federal judge in the District of Alaska last year tossed out that suit, and now Bopp is asking for an appellate rehearing after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30 affirmed the dismissal. That suit is Kenneth Kirk, et al. v. Chief Justice Walter Carpeneti, et al., No. 09-35860. The appellate court hasn’t ruled on that rehearing request filed Oct. 14.

Similar federal court challenges haven’t been raised about the Hoosier system, though some lawmakers have in recent years targeted the selection systems and tried unsuccessfully to change how the appellate or trial courts operate in choosing judges. Most of the Indiana trial judges face some type of election, though Lake and St. Joseph Superior courts are the only ones who use a nominating commission and retention system. Efforts to overturn those methods have gained steam recently, with lawmakers last year voting to change the St. Joseph system but Gov. Mitch Daniels vetoing that move and upholding merit selection.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT