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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT