ILNews

New judicial selection battle ahead?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana may soon see its next battle over how the state’s top judges are selected.

That debate surfaces at least once or twice a decade, and it’s expected to heat up again following a controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision that says residents can’t resist unlawful police entry into their homes, no matter the situation or how reasonable that resistance might be.

One state senator plans to introduce a constitutional amendment in the next session that would alter the existing merit-selection system, and other lawmakers support discussing potential changes to the judicial selection method that’s been in place for 40 years in the Indiana appellate courts and two county’s Superior courts.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people have mounted a campaign to recall the state’s newest justice – Justice Steven David who joined the Supreme Court in October and faces retention in 2012. This is in the wake of the May 12 ruling in Richard L. Barnes v. State, a split decision that Justice David authored after just six months on the bench.

While many in the Indiana legal community question the rationale the justices used in issuing such a broad holding, those same people come to the defense of the merit-selection system. Many say that even if they don’t like the selection method, they don’t advocate discarding it because of one decision.

“What’s clear to me is that having an isolated incident form the basis for moving away from a selection system is stupid,” said Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charlie Geyh, a national expert on judicial selection. “This seems like an excuse de jour for changing the system, and calling for that or even a recall is a very risky proposition to even consider because it usurps the power of what the courts are supposed to do.”

Since 1972, the state’s highest appellate courts have used a merit selection system that involves a seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission recommending three finalists to the governor. The governor then makes the appointment. Both Lake and St. Joseph Superior courts use similar selection methods, while all of the state’s other counties elect their judges. Marion County is unique, using a slating system where the county political parties choose candidates for the May primary, and those candidates take the bench if no one runs against the slate in the November election.

Through the years, attempts have been made to change the selection system at the local or state levels.

The most recent legislative battle on that topic was in 2009, when the Indiana General Assembly approved scrapping merit selection for judicial elections in St. Joseph Superior courts. Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, authored and gained legislative approval of House Enrolled Act 1491. Gov. Mitch Daniels vetoed that measure and voiced his support for merit selection.

That same year, Fry offered a resolution changing the selection method for state Supreme Court justices, but it didn’t achieve any traction. The Indiana State Bar Association has worked to educate legislators about the merit selection system.
 

foley-ralph-mug.jpg Foley

In 2006, Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, who is also an attorney, suggested restructuring the nominating commission and placing recommendations from the JNC on the ballot next to the names of jurists up for retention. That bill passed out of committee on a party-line vote, but it was never voted on by the House of Representatives.

Foley said he saw that proposal as a compromise to radical departures from the existing system. When he began practicing in 1965 and supported the move from elections to merit-based selection, Foley didn’t envision what he now describes as “blatant politicking to stack the deck for committee members and judicial nominees.”

While he sees a need for more accountability and public education, Foley said that isn’t a focus for the upcoming session and he would oppose a large-scale shift based on this single decision.

“I imagine because of recent events, it’s attracted attention once again on how we select our judges,” he said. “Yes, I think the decision went too far. But that’s not enough to change what we have. Every time I have a disagreement with a court ruling, I don’t want to go out and try to redo how the court is made up.”

Other lawmakers have plans of their own.


white-tess-mug.jpg Young

Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, plans to revive a proposal he introduced six years ago that would require Senate confirmation of any state appellate judge or justice initially appointed or up for retention. His bill passed the Senate in 2005 but didn’t get support in the House, and the legislator said he’s been waiting for the best time to reintroduce the idea. He says he will do that during next session. Young said the Barnes ruling justifies why judges must be held more accountable than they are now.

“To have a judge in Indiana basically be serving for life without anyone reviewing any decisions they’ve made, that’s just not right and it goes against public policy. At least this way, a judiciary committee would be able to review the actions and that would be a more practical way to do things than the meaningless retention process we have now,” Young said.

Various lawmakers have echoed those thoughts, and a public campaign on Facebook dubbed “Recall Justice David” has been formed and is circulating petitions calling for his removal. But opinions differ within the legal community.

Indianapolis lawyer John Trimble said the public too often hears about a judicial opinion but does not get a complete or accurate description of the underlying facts or the precedents the court relied upon in reaching a decision.

“I believe that all lawyers strongly support the right of all citizens to criticize the government, but the public has lost complete touch with the role of the judiciary in our society,” said Trimble, who served on the Judicial Nominating Commission from 2007 to 2010 and has worked with the state bar’s judicial selection committee. “It is not the role of judges to do what is popular at the moment. Unfortunately, the speed of news these days through cable outlets and the Internet has caused what I view as a lynch mob mentality toward judicial decisions, and much of the time the attitude of the mob is based on incomplete information or misinformation.”•

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. 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