ILNews

Senate gets St. Joe judges bill, with twist

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The full Indiana Senate will consider in the next week whether St. Joseph Superior judges should be elected or merit-selected and retained by voters. A Senate committee wants the full legislative body to consider that issue, but with a twist: An amendment has been attached to the controversial House Bill 1491.

The legislation now addresses the selection issue, but also calls for creating a new, sixth panel for the Indiana Court of Appeals. That topic had been addressed by other legislation that has been passed by the Senate but hasn't received a House committee hearing, and will likely die in the coming week. Now, it has new life and would implement the new three-judge panel in 2011.

The Senate Judiciary Committee considered HB 1491 this morning and, after a 30-minute debate, voted 6-5 in favor of the legislation with the one appellate court amendment. The committee voted 7-4 to add that amendment. Three other amendments proposed during last week's committee meeting were withdrawn, including the one that would have made all Lake Superior judges be merit-selected rather than the hybrid merit/election system currently in place. This means the legislation now goes to the full Senate for consideration.

"We are sad about this vote and just feel so incredibly strong that this isn't right," said St. Joseph County Bar Association President Carl Greci, who opposes the bill along with colleagues and the Indiana State Bar Association. "We've been blessed for 35 years to have merit selection, and believe it's the best method to use for selecting judges."

Today, six senators voted in favor of it and five voted against it. All but two of the legislators supporting the change are attorneys. Voting against the bill were Sens. John Broden, D-South Bend; Tim Lanane, D-Anderson; Teresa Lubbers, R-Indianapolis; Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago; and Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis.
In opposing the legislation, Taylor pointed out he was specifically against the Court of Appeals amendment being attached because he didn't feel the two were related and should be dealt with separately.

Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, the committee chairman who also chairs the summer interim Commission on Courts that had opposed the measure, cast the deciding vote. He hesitated and weighed the split before making his decision, then grimaced as he voted yes to pass it to the full Senate. After adjournment, the senator pointed to his opposition in the Commission on Courts but said he wanted all his colleagues in the Senate to have a chance to weigh the important issue and vote for or against it.

Broden, who is also a South Bend attorney, explained his vote.

"In my support of merit selection, I'm in no way suggesting any inferiority of elected judges. I support it on a fundamental belief in a free and independent judiciary," he said. "It's bodies like us who voice the will of the populous. We stand for elections and we hear the passions of the people and represent them. The judiciary is meant to be a check on that. People's passions aren't always looking out for the rights of other people, and courts must do that."

Explaining his vote in favor of the bill, Sen. Joseph C. Zakas, R-Granger, said it's obvious that the merit-selection method just hasn't caught on for trial courts since being implemented in Lake and St. Joseph counties more than three decades ago. People in those two counties have the most at stake and should be able to decide how to choose their judges.

Indiana State Bar Association President Bill Jonas, a St. Joseph County attorney, had spoken at the meeting and also was disappointed in the committee vote. The ISBA will continue advocating for merit selection, and he said a long-term effort for statewide merit selection might have to take more priority given this legislation's quick path through the legislature.

The Senate will likely take the bill up in the coming days, with a time for amendments possible before the third reading deadline on April 15. Since the bill has now been amended in committee, it would have to go back through the House voting process if approved by the Senate. If no agreement can be reached on the amended version, then a conference committee would have to negotiate before the April 29 legislative deadline for this session.

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