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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT