ILNews

No vote yet on St. Joe judges bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Senate committee debated this morning a bill that would make it so St. Joseph Superior judges are elected rather than chosen by merit selection and later retained by voters.

But after two hours of debate and only one of four proposed amendments offered up for discussion, committee chair Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, withdrew House Bill 1491 from the table and opted to postpone it for future discussion at its next meeting in a week.

Authored by Rep. Craig Fry, R-Mishawaka, the bill sets up non-partisan elections every six years. While not in the original bill, the amended version passed by the House in February also restricts and caps campaign contributions of any judicial candidate; it prohibits a Superior judge candidate from receiving any money from a political party or political action committee, and bans them from getting more than $500 from one person, $1,000 from any two or more people from a single law firm, or more than $10,000 in total contributions.

Fry didn't attend the hearing, and Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, spoke to the committee in his place supporting the bill. He told committee members that "an overwhelming number" of residents want the change so they can be treated equitably because 90 Indiana counties use elections to choose judges, and that elections would provide more accountability.

Leo Blackwell with the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police testified in favor of the bill and said he'd heard from members that the local police and prosecutor have led this effort because they feel St. Joseph judges' sentences are inconsistent. He told a committee member that sentencing should be done on a case-by-case basis, but that judges also need to listen to the will of people in making these decisions.

Several committee members voiced support generally for wanting judges to be chosen by voters rather than by appointment following the merit selection process. Lawmakers tiptoed around the issues of home rule and also of favoring one type of selection method over another, fearing that it could be read the wrong way that the legislator doesn't support elected or merit judges.

Several groups spoke in opposition to this bill, including the St. Joseph County Chamber of Commerce, local League of Women Voters affiliate, Indiana and St. Joseph County bar associations, and the local judiciary.

"It's not broken for us," said ISBA president Bill Jonas, who's been practicing law in St. Joseph County since 1981. "Judges are umpires who have to be able to call balls and strikes based on whether the pitch is over the plate .... Without regard to who the batter or pitcher is, or the opposing managers are."

After discussing HB 1491 for more than an hour, Bray noted that four amendments were being proposed and began reading the first. That proposal essentially took the form of Lake County-focused legislation that had died in committee earlier this year; that bill by Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, proposed changing the northwest county's current system using both election and merit selection so that all Lake Superior judges are merit selected and retained. All the county's Superior judges are merit selected, except for four county division Superior judges who voters must elect.

That amendment sparked a new debate of its own, with committee members, fellow legislators, and bar associations urging the Judiciary Committee to not confuse the two counties' issues into one piece of legislation. The other three proposed amendments were not detailed during the public meeting and aren't yet accessible.

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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT