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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT