ILNews

Legislators discuss need for ‘people’s voice’ in selecting Marion Superior judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Legislators raised several concerns Monday afternoon during the conference committee for House Bill 1036, which establishes merit selection for choosing Marion Superior judges. Several expressed the need to allow the general public to have a say through elections.

Republican Sen. Mike Young of Indianapolis said there needs to be a consideration for Marion County residents to have some voice in who their judges are, whatever form that takes. The current form of the bill lets residents from four geographical districts in Marion County elect one representative from their district to sit on the Marion County Judicial Selection Committee. The committee would vet candidates and recommend names to the governor for appointment to the bench. Judges on the bench would then be up for retention vote.

Four of the other committee members would be appointed by Indiana House and Senate leaders from both parties; two each would be appointed by Marion County Democratic and Republican party chairs; and one judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals and one Indiana Supreme Court justice would sit on it.

Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, argued every Hoosier deserves an opportunity to elect their officials and said accountability comes through the election box. He called out Rep. Greg Steuerwald, who authored the bill, saying the Avon Republican only accepted views from the majority party in crafting the bill. Taylor and other members of the Indiana Black Legislative Caucus have argued that this bill won’t ensure diversity on the bench.  

He pointed out that bills have been introduced in recent years to change the selection of judges in Lake and St. Joseph Counties from merit-selection to elections. Those bills did not pass.

Taylor also said this bill “smells of conflict” in that the governor will have a say in who the Marion Superior judges are and that Marion County has jurisdiction over legal issues involving the government and the governor. He suggested residents elect nine judges from each of the four districts outlined in the bill as a way to achieve diversity on the bench.

Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, comes from St. Joseph County, which uses merit selection to pick its judges. He noted the process is a little different in his county as compared to HB 1036 and questioned why under the Marion County bill, the political party chairpersons get to appoint people to serve on the selection committee.

He also questioned why all counties don’t switch to merit selection if it’s such a great process.

Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, and Rep. John Bartlett, D-Indianapolis, also expressed concerns about taking away the people’s right to vote for their judges.

Sen. Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis, pointed out questions have been raised by the American Civil Liberties Union about the bill and that “we don’t want to pass something that will automatically result in a lawsuit and stress the system further.”

At the end of the meeting, Steuerwald said he plans to work with the co-authors and sponsors and come up with a report for consideration. The session is scheduled to end next week, but legislators have said they'd like to wrap up this week.

The Legislature needs to pass a bill reforming how Marion Superior judges are selected after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the current system in September 2015 as unconstitutional.

For the last 40 years, Marion Superior judges pay a slating fee to be on the primary, and an equal number of Republicans and Democrats are elected through the primary to face a vote in the general election. Because the number of names placed on the general ballot is equal to the number of spots on the bench up for grabs, if a candidate makes it out of the primary, he or she is basically guaranteed to be elected in November.

Archived video of the conference committee is available here.

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT