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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT