ILNews

Senate OKs COA panel, St. Joe judge elections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 The full Senate voted today in support of legislation scrapping the St. Joseph Superior judge merit-selection system for judicial elections, and also creating a new panel for the Indiana Court of Appeals.

A 35-15 vote came after a 40-minute Senate floor debate starting just after noon, bringing up heated discussion for and against House Bill 1491. But the discussion ended on a note that now sends the amended bill back to its originating legislative body for consideration.

Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, introduced the legislation as a "very simple and straightforward" bill calling for both judicial accountability and a "need that's been recognized for a long time." The bill authored by Rep. Craig Fry, R-Mishawaka, sets up non-partisan elections every six years for the county's eight Superior judges who are currently chosen by a merit-selection process and later retained by voters. The bill also restricts and caps campaign contributions of any judicial candidate, and last week it was amended to establish a new appellate panel starting in 2011.

A divided Senate Judiciary Committee voted on April 8 to amend the bill, then voted 6-5 to send the legislation to the full Senate. The bill got approval earlier this week and was set for final vote Tuesday, but got pushed back to today because of the heavy legislative calendar.

Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker met briefly with senators on Tuesday, sharing that the appellate court's statistics show the number of cases the court handles is down so far this year. He said the new COA panel being tied to legislation that would end merit-selection in St. Joseph County is a concern, and that the Indiana Judges Association supports the current method used there. He also said it's up to the lawmakers to decide whether it should happen.

Some senators questioned the intent of lumping both issues together, saying it isn't consistent to advocate on one page that judges be elected and on another that the state pay for three new judges to be merit-chosen and retained. Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-Gary, a judiciary committee member who'd opposed the bill previously, said he is troubled by the two issues being combined, particularly at this time.

"We're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist," Randolph said of an additional Court of Appeals panel. "At a time when we have a budget crisis, poor economy, and we're trying to find money, here we want to spend (millions) on this court. We've got to be practical."

Leading the opposition specifically on the merit-selection issue was Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, who supports the merit-selection system currently in place in St. Joseph and Lake counties since 1973. The remaining 90 counties use partisan or non-partisan elections.

"I'm not condemning the many other elected judges statewide or in St. Joseph County," he said, citing landmark cases going back decades and wondering how they would have ended up if those judges faced elections. "My opposition is not based on any notion that there would be a 'For Sale' sign out on the St. Joseph Courthouse, but on my fundamental belief that this system has served St. Joe well."

But others disagreed on how to reach that goal, even those whose names appear on the Roll of Attorneys. Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, who practices in his southern Indiana community, voted in favor of the bill and said he wanted the decision-making power to be with voters, not a merit-selection committee and ultimately the person doing the appointing. The senator said he conducted a survey on this issue in his five counties, and received a 92 percent response in favor of elections versus appointments.

Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville - who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee and also chairs the summer interim Commission on Courts that had opposed this measure - voted in favor of the bill.

Bray, who authored the COA panel amendment and cast the deciding committee vote last week, said the reason this amendment was attached was because it achieved the long-running goal for a new panel but pushed the creation back from 2010 to 2011 because of fiscal reasons. It's estimated to cost about $1.3 million in the first year and $2.2 million in the following years. Only about $3,750 would be used during this next two-year cycle, he said.

Since HB 1491 has been amended from its original form passed by the House in February, it now goes back through that voting process. 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. The governor also retains veto power on any piece of legislation, but so far he hasn't publicly offered any input on this issue.

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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT