ILNews

Legislators revisit vetoed merit-selection measure

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the final days of the Indiana General Assembly session, as lawmakers pushed to finish and put final touches on the end-of-term business, a 2009 measure that divided the Hoosier legal community came back into play.

Lawmakers resurrected vetoed legislation that would not only scrap St. Joseph County's merit-selection system for nonpartisan judicial elections, but also add a new three-judge panel to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

For those in St. Joseph County who'd be directly impacted by this judicial selection change, they describe the last-minute legislative move as disappointing.

"I find it discouraging and more than a little cynical that this would surface at the end of the session, when it could be hidden or lost in the shuffle of end-of-term business," said South Bend attorney Bill Jonas, the former Indiana State Bar Association president who led the opposition to this legislation last year. "It's even harder to believe when analysts say that the new appellate court panel is unnecessary, and that it would cost more than $2 million annually. It doesn't make sense to me to be spending that kind of money when we're laying off teachers and slashing funding for higher education."

The House of Representatives on Wednesday put on its calendar House Enrolled Act 1491, which had been introduced in early 2009 by Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, and passed both chambers before ultimately being vetoed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

"It is a model to be emulated, not discarded. It is not broken; it requires no repair. It has produced outstanding jurists and contains sufficient measures of public accountability. I believe it neither necessary nor wise to re-politicize the courts of St. Joseph County," the governor wrote.

He also explained it would be tough to justify the $2 million yearly cost for a new appellate panel, given the current fiscal challenges, but that the proposal should be considered on its own merits - not attached to the merit-selection change.

"Moreover, if I were to sign a bill linking these two proposals, it could contribute to public cynicism by creating the appearance that my acquiescence was purchased with more appointments. Whatever the merits of expanding the Court of Appeals may be, they should be considered alone," he wrote.

Almost a year later when the state's financial crisis has gotten worse and lawmakers have pressed for budget cuts and less spending at all levels, the House has brought the measure back for reconsideration. Nothing had happened on the measure by IL deadline.

A simple majority from both the House and Senate is needed for a veto override. Legislative staff and the ISBA expected it would get more attention before the session ends March 14.

ISBA legislative counsel Paje Felts said she wasn't surprised by the quiet reintroduction of the act during the final days of the session, but that she and others in the legal community had hoped it wouldn't be brought back for consideration.

ISBA, Indianapolis Bar Association, St. Joseph County Bar Association and others had strongly opposed changing the selection system in St. Joe, fearing that a shift there would lead to a change in Lake County where merit selection and retention are also used. The topic is controversial at every level, and late last year the Judicial Conference of Indiana proposed adopting a statewide merit selection system. That move hasn't gotten support from the Indiana Judges Association, which says there isn't enough consensus statewide and in the largest areas like Marion County on how to move toward a unified selection system for Indiana.

SJCBA president John Lloyd, a partner at Krieg DeVault in Mishawaka, echoed what his colleague Jonas said about the ill timing of the legislation.

"The (legislation) seeks to change a local court system that works and is based on a model that all serious analysts believe is the best way to select judges," he said, noting that a campaign contribution cap in the measure could be unconstitutional. "Worst of all is how there is no justification for wasting $2 million dollars for a Court of Appeals division that is completely unnecessary."

Check http://www.theindianalawyer.com for updates on this story.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT