ILNews

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission vote extended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indianapolis attorneys – Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll and Lee Christie, partner with Cline Farrell Christie & Lee – will have to wait a bit longer to find out who their peers elect to serve on the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.

An untold number of lawyers didn’t get ballots, so the voting deadline has been rolled back. Stakes are high, because the person elected will participate in decisions that will shape the Indiana Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brent Dickson will turn 75, hitting the mandatory retirement age for judges, in the final year of the three-year term for which Carroll and Christie are vying.

A glitch in mailings discovered earlier this month prevented some of the more than 7,400 eligible attorneys from receiving ballots. When Indiana Supreme Court staff discovered the problem, they scrambled to make sure all eligible voters received ballots, and the deadline was extended from the original vote-tallying date of Nov. 19 to Dec. 3.

Attorneys in good standing in Marion County and 18 other counties north of Indianapolis are eligible to vote for the successor to Indianapolis attorney William Winingham, whose term on the seven-member commission expires Dec. 31. Commissioners may not be elected or appointed to serve full consecutive terms.

Carroll and Christie each sent voters information about themselves in materials asking for support. For Carroll, the appeal included an overture to elect her as the first woman attorney to serve on the panel established in the early 1970s.

Prominent Carroll supporters formed a group called the 1893 Committee, which refers to the year that a female lawyer was first admitted to practice in Indiana. Backers “thought it was high time for a woman lawyer to be represented on the commission,” Carroll said.

Like Carroll, Christie has lined up big-name, influential supporters he cited in his mailings to voters. “I’m kind of reaching out to people who are more small- and medium-sized practitioners,” Christie said. He said it’s important for such firms to have a seat at the table.

Former Justice Frank Sullivan, now a professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the attorney member elected this year – and the commissioners elected or appointed in the next few years – unquestionably will influence the future direction of the court.

“In mid-2016, Chief Justice Dickson will reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 and be required by the Indiana Constitution to retire. This means that the attorney elected will participate in selecting the nominees to succeed (Dickson),” Sullivan said.

“Of equal if not greater importance, the commission itself elects – actually elects, not just nominates – which justice serves as chief justice,” he said. “This means that when Chief Justice Dickson steps down, the attorney elected will also participate in selecting the next chief justice of Indiana.”

Dickson declined to discuss his thoughts about a potential successor. But as chair of the panel that includes three attorney members elected by lawyers and three non-lawyer members appointed by the governor, Dickson would hold considerable influence over the selection of the justice who succeeds him and have an even greater say on who the commission selects as the next chief justice.

At the time of Dickson’s mandatory retirement, the panel will include three members appointed by Gov. Mike Pence. The term of non-lawyer member Molly Kitchell, representing COA District 1, expires Dec. 31, and a Pence spokeswoman said no decision had been made regarding a successor. Indiana Code 33-27-2-1 provides that the governor appoint commissioners one month before terms expire, but commissioners may continue to serve until such time as appointments have been made.

Christie has been a practicing trial attorney for 32 years, and Carroll a litigator for almost 28 years. Neither said they were motivated to seek election to the commission by the prospect of having a say in future decisions on who will serve on and lead the Supreme Court.

“My motivation was just having some input on the judges that would be screened to go to the governor,” Christie said. Both Christie and Carroll said judicial temperament would be a key consideration in evaluating nominees to the judiciary.

“I feel that based on my experience as a trial lawyer and a state court practitioner, I have a good sense of what it is that makes a good judge, and we all have an interest in having quality appellate judges,” Carroll said.

Before she began practicing law, Carroll was an Associated Press Statehouse reporter who covered the merit selection of Dickson and Randall Shepard as justices. “I had an interest in it from my reporting days, and that obviously continued in my law practice.”

Along with his experience in the courtroom, Christie has also operated an alternative dispute resolution practice that he said in 20 years has handled some 2,500 cases. “My ideals are more from the individual and from the more small-firm perspective as opposed to the more big-corporation, big-firm perspective,” he said.

Addressing the voting glitch, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said ballots will be counted for attorneys who have already returned them, so they need not take further action.

On Nov. 12, the court issued an order that extended the balloting deadline, but the order signed by Dickson shed little light on what happened or why. “During the week of Nov. 4, 2013, it came to the Clerk and the Court’s attention that while most eligible electors had received their ballots and accompanying materials through the mail, many had not,” the order says. “After further investigation, the Clerk determined that an unidentified issue with the delivery of the mail had caused an unknown number of ballots and accompanying materials not to be delivered to eligible voters.”

The commission’s three attorney members are elected by lawyers in each of the three geographical COA districts, and the three governor-appointed non-lawyer commissioners also are selected from each of those districts. The panel interviews candidates and recommends finalists for vacancies on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court, from which the governor chooses appointees.

The commission members also serve as the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which investigates complaints against judges.

Court of Appeals District 2 is made up of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White counties.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT