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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT