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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT