ILNews

Picking an Indiana Supreme Court justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Judicial Nominating Commission spent about 12 hours over two days in public interviews with 22 lawyers and judges, each of whom hopes to be Indiana’s next Supreme Court justice.

But when the interviews were over, it was the three hours or so behind closed doors on July 18 that narrowed the field to 10 semifinalists. Emerging from executive session, the commission reconvened in public, and member Jean Northenor made a motion naming the 10 semifinalists. The motion seconded, the seven-member panel voted unanimous approval with no discussion. The meeting adjourned.

il-interviews07-15col.jpg Indiana justice applicant John Young, left, speaks with Judicial Nominating Commission member John Ulmer. Young was among 10 semifinalists selected to replace Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The six women and four men still in the running to replace retiring Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. will repeat the process of public interviews on Aug. 8-9. And the commission again will huddle in private afterward, this time to winnow the list to three candidates whose names will be forwarded to Gov. Mitch Daniels for his selection. (Click here to read about the 10 semifinalists.)

So what happens when those doors close?

“The first thing we do is sit down and say, ‘How do we decide?” said Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who chairs the commission that also includes three attorney members and three non-attorney members. “There’s no institutionalized process of voting.”

Northenor and other commission members who spoke to Indiana Lawyer after the semifinalists were selected described a collegial process that at the same time required hours of give-and-take to reach consensus.

“The chief justice as chairman will call on somebody and say, ‘What are your thoughts,’” said Northenor, a non-attorney member from Warsaw. “We talk about some who probably won’t make the cut.”

“It’s just a lot of deliberating,” to come to consensus on semifinalists, she said. “We start making a list. … If someone disagrees, we talk it through.”

The commission includes a majority of members who’ve served for less than two years, including the three non-attorney members appointed by Daniels: Northenor, who came on the board this year; Molly Kitchell of Zionsville, who was appointed last year; and Ryan Streeter of Indianapolis, who just last month replaced member Fred McCashland, who resigned.

Among attorney members, John Ulmer of Goshen also arrived on the board this year. And Dickson took over as chair when former Chief Justice Randall Shepard retired this year.

Attorney Jim McDonald of Terre Haute, who is the longest-serving commission member, is in the final year of his second non-consecutive term. Attorney William Winingham of Indianapolis is the second-longest tenured member.

Except for the chief justice, members serve three-year terms that cannot be consecutive.

“We take turns. We go back and forth,” Ulmer said of the deliberations. “Each member will say, ‘I think so-and-so’s a good prospect; we ought to invite him or her back.’”

Ulmer, a former Republican state representative, said it was noteworthy what members didn’t talk about. “There’s no politics discussed – none whatsoever.” There also was no discussion in executive session about the topic that has dominated the public discourse: whether the next justice should be a woman.

“We are one of the three ‘I’s’: Iowa, Idaho and Indiana, (that) don’t have a female on the Supreme Court,” Ulmer said. But he noted that Daniels had offered this advice when Ulmer came on the commission: “He said, ‘John, pick the three best qualified.’”

That is what the JNC is statutorily required to do. But qualifications can be in the eye of the beholder.

Determining semifinalists for the state’s high court was a challenge, Streeter said, because there’s no “track” to determine qualifications to be a justice, and the panel had to weigh applicants with a broad range of legal and life experience. “It’s a rich and diverse group of people.”

Streeter said he was impressed by how well versed commission members were with each candidate’s application and how the group worked together behind closed doors. “It’s a very collegial group. Everybody was incredibly fair-minded.”

Kitchell said deliberations were remarkably civil even as members made the case for applicants they deemed most qualified.

“You may not end up getting the result you want, but it’s a group discussion,” she said, adding that odds are long that all seven commission members would be in complete agreement on each candidate. “It’s nice to see how open minded people are. I’m amazed at the amount of time the chief justice allows us to present our impressions,” Kitchell said.

McDonald said non-attorney members’ participation is of critical importance.

“In my opinion, there are no shrinking violets on that commission as far as non-attorneys,” he said. “I have on more than one occasion changed my position on a candidate based on the position of the lay people.”

Commission members said neither attorney members nor non-attorneys tend to dominate the executive session talks.

“I would concede they are better qualified at evaluating some of the legal experience” of candidates, Kitchell said of the attorneys on the panel. “But it’s very important to all of us that the person we pick is a good person.”

During his first term, McDonald participated in no judicial appointments. This term, Sullivan’s replacement will mark the third justice he’s helped appoint in less than three years, along with interviewing Indiana Tax Court and Court of Appeals applicants.

“I never thought I would possibly be this busy,” he said, noting that his commission obligations have taken away from his private practice. But he said it’s worth the rare experience to have a chance to evaluate someone who likely will serve on the high court for many years.

“To me, it is probably the most significant responsibility I feel I’ve ever been in a position to participate in,” McDonald said.

In early August, the commission will restart the process, welcoming back 10 familiar faces.

“It’ll be difficult getting down to the final three,” Ulmer said.•

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT