ILNews

Justice selection process wasn't always public

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The names of three people have been sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels for consideration to be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice.

One thing is already clear: Those who’ve made it this far have found a place in the Hoosier record books as they join a distinguished list of attorneys who through the years have been finalists for an opening on the state’s highest court.

The current trio of finalists is now part of a 21-person group that’s gotten past the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission in those selections during the past three decades. Some have moved to the appellate bench in other capacities while others have tried their luck for other openings, and some have not tried again to secure a Supreme Court spot. But whatever the makeup of that roster, those names mark historic changes in how the overall process has operated through the years.

Indiana Supreme Court The number of people applying for the Indiana Supreme Court fell just short of the record set 25 years ago, when Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard was first named to the bench. He’s just one of the many attorneys and judges who’ve been final contenders for the court. (IBJ Photo/Elizabeth Brockett)

“No one ever expects to get to the final three, but you certainly hope you’ll be,” said Indianapolis attorney Mary Beth Ramey, a founding partner at Ramey & Hailey who was a finalist in 1999 when Justice Robert D. Rucker was named to the bench. “I knew people had to be eliminated, and I worked really hard as one of those candidates facing elimination to move forward. You hold your breath and hope.”

That is likely the common theme through the years among all who’ve faced the Nominating Commission and moved on to be put on the roster for the governor’s consideration.

Though 34 initially applied this year to replace retiring Justice Theodore R. Boehm – and that was a record for the past 25 years – the number fell short of the 36 who applied in 1985. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard was part of that applicant pool then seeking to succeed former Justice Donald Hunter, who’d hit the mandatory retirement age. At that time, the man who’s now been the court’s administrative leader for more than two decades was a Vanderburgh Superior judge who’d been on the bench for about five years.

Reflecting on that process, the chief justice said it was much different at that time. Indiana’s statutory scheme hadn’t yet changed to make the applicant roster and interview process public – everything was confidential until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Click here for a list of finalists since 1985.

“The list was never public, so you never really knew all who’d applied,” the chief justice said. “But because of a massive amount of reporter time, The [Indianapolis] Star uncovered the names of about two-thirds of the applicants by calling up and asking them. I certainly knew several of them, but it was all closed.”

Instead of the current process put into place in the early ’90s when a fifth district was added to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Judicial Nominating Commission at the time conducted all of the interviews during three days and announced the finalists at the end. Now the process involves narrowing the list to semi-finalists and bringing those individuals back for second interviews before choosing three finalists to send to the governor for consideration.

Randall Shepard Shepard, 1985

Thinking back on his interview, Chief Justice Shepard said he didn’t recall specifically how long his interview lasted, but he knew that he was in the room longer than his allotted time. He remembers then-Chief Justice Richard Givan asking him questions about how he managed his trial court work and something about philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke, but he doesn’t recall how he answered.

“I know I spent a fair amount of time getting ready, because the application then was as it is now – a fairly substantial process in itself,” Chief Justice Shepard said. “I remember spending a lot of time thinking about what I might be asked and what I might say.”

After what he now describes as a grueling process for the commission members at the time, the chief justice emerged as one of three finalists for the opening – the other two finalists were attorney Patrick Woods Harrison in Columbus and then-Bartholomew Circuit Judge Raymond Thomas Green, who’s now practicing in Fort Wayne.

Harrison said he had no regrets about how the process turned out. After the Nominating Commission interview, he met twice with then-Gov. Robert Orr and answered questions about experience and general philosophies about issues such as utilities. Within a few weeks, the announcement came about the final choice.

“Honestly, I wrote the governor after Justice Shepard was appointed and said, ‘I hate to admit this, but you made the right choice,’” Harrison said. “I can say so many great things about Randy and just can’t think of anything bad, and that’s unusual for someone who’s been on the court for so long.”

Chief Justice Shepard said he was the oldest of the three on that list, and he later learned that the commission members considering applicants had expressed “a fair amount of sentiment” to find someone young for the court.

Now serving as chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission, he finds himself on the flip side of that interview process for the sixth time since taking the chief justice role.

“I still believe this two-stage process has been a valuable change,” Chief Justice Shepard said. “For one, it gives commission members a second look at candidates before making a final choice. It also gives us a chance to call references, and the seven of us have been able to divide up the task of calling those references. It’s just a better decision-making process.”

Other attorneys and judges who’ve made it to the finalist round, but weren’t chosen for a Supreme Court post, have made similar comments and say their faith in the process didn’t waver despite not being chosen.

“It was a very interesting process to go through,” said Ramey, who pointed out she hadn’t personally gone through or observed that process before. “One of the things that really struck me was that you feel very honored that you’d made it to the final three, and that’s almost an honor in itself. But then you’re really at the governor’s mercy from there.”

Another finalist was Indiana Court of Appeals Judge James S. Kirsch, who at the time he was a finalist in 1993 served on the Marion Superior bench. The commission chose him along with Judge Betty Barteau and attorney Frank Sullivan, the latter who ultimately received the governor’s selection for a seat vacated by Justice Jon Krahulik.

That was his second of three times Judge Kirsch had faced the nominating commission as a finalist, and the third time he was appointed to the state’s second highest appellate court.

“For me, the third time was the charm, but I was tremendously honored to be included on all three panels,” he said. “My primary memory is one of gratitude to the commission members who gave so very freely of their time, treated all of the candidates with the utmost courtesy and respect, and worked very diligently to carry out their charge. My prior experience gave me a better understanding of the process, made it a bit less daunting, and set the stage for my appointment to the Court of Appeals several months later.”

Before being tapped for the Indiana Court of Appeals in 1998, then-St. Joseph Superior Judge Sanford M. Brook found himself making the finalist roster three times for the state appellate courts during the 1990s – twice for the intermediate court and once for the Supreme Court opening along with Justice Boehm.

“I have been disappointed, but the integrity of the process has not diminished,” he told Indiana Lawyer at the time he was vying for a justice seat. “I, each time, have been honored to be one of the final three.”

That’s a sentiment echoed by Chief Justice Shepard, who praises the other two finalists he was up against a quarter century ago as well as everyone who’s come before the commission in the many years since. Whether it’s narrowing the initial applicant list to semi-finalists or whittling that number down to three, the decision-making isn’t easy for the commission members because so many qualified individuals must be passed over.

He recognizes that it might have even been a possibility for himself back in 1985, even though the process was so different at that time. The chief justice laughs about the possibility of a different result, had the process been any different or been spread out in stages as it is now.

“I have no basis to know, but there was a list of substantially qualified people who applied,” he said. “I am lucky to have made it.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT