ILNews

UPDATE: Committee tweaking St. Joe judges bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Updated at 4:30 p.m.
A legislative conference committee is debating what changes might be possible for a bill aimed at scrapping merit selection for St. Joseph Superior judges. Discussions today focused on keeping judicial elections non-partisan, delaying the creation of a new appellate panel by six months, possibly removing a part about political contribution restrictions, and adding language to allow city or town courts to use interlocal agreements for ordinance violations.

The conference committee met at 3:30 p.m. in the Indiana Statehouse to discuss House Bill 1491, which was authored by Rep. Craig Fry, R-Mishawaka, and has gotten support from both sides of the legislature this session.

While a meeting Wednesday included discussion of possibly setting up partisan elections rather than non-partisan contests as originally intended, that didn't come up today. Fry assured committee members that the elections would be similar to school board contests and the top two primary candidates would be put on the general election ballot in November.

Another issue was the Senate amendment that would create a sixth Court of Appeals panel starting in 2011 - an item not in the original House bill. The Senate-approved bill calls for that panel to begin Jan. 1, 2011, but lawmakers are now discussing pushing that to July 1, 2011 so it won't impact this current two-year budget. House Speaker Rep. Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, wants that change, Fry said.

Also, Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, worried about the bill's provision capping and restricting campaign contributions for any judicial candidates. He said legislators are prohibited from capping contributions for individuals, and he's worried that language capping money from "all sources" at $10,000 might not clearly consider that and might favor independently wealthy judicial candidates. Koch suggested taking that part out all together.

The committee also proposed adding the court interlocal agreement language from House Bill 1703, which had passed the House but didn't make it to a Senate vote.

No decisions were made today. The conference committee plans to circulate copies of its draft report this week so legislators can discuss them with their party leadership before coming together early next week to sign that report. The General Assembly faces an April 29 deadline to pass legislation and forward it to Gov. Mitch Daniels for consideration.

Original post:

St. Joseph Superior judges would be chosen by voters in partisan elections rather than non-partisan contests under a change discussed by a legislative conference committee Wednesday. More amendments for House Bill 1491 could be debated or voted on today, during a 3:30 p.m. public conference committee meeting at the Indiana Statehouse.

Aimed at ending the merit-selection and retention system that's been in place in St. Joseph County since 1973, HB 1491 is on the verge of passage by lawmakers in the final week of the legislative session. Rep. Craig Fry, R-Mishawaka, is the original author and was joined by Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, as a sponsor in the Senate. The Senate voted 35-15 in favor of it last week, and the House had overwhelmingly supported it in February.

But because the bill's been amended to also create a new three-judge panel for the Indiana Court of Appeals, it's now being hammered out in conference committee after the House dissented from that part of the bill earlier this week. The House has named two conferees: Fry and Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Elkhart, who attached an amendment in February restricting and capping campaign contributions for judicial candidates. Senate conferees named Wednesday are Charbonneau and Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte. House advisors are Reps. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington; Charlie Brown, D-Gary; Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville; and Eric Koch, R-Bedford. Senate advisors are Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, and Tim Lenane, D-Anderson.

The first and what was initially expected to be the only public conference committee meeting was Wednesday, a day when many opponents of the legislation were attending a St. Joseph County Bar Association event in South Bend where retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke in favor of merit selection. More than 500 people, mostly attorneys and judges, attended the lunchtime event.

This morning a second hearing was scheduled, according to Indiana State Bar Association President Bill Jonas, a South Bend attorney who is closely monitoring the legislation. He said that second hearing isn't required, and he didn't know if it was added because of the conflict with Wednesday's event. An amendment discussed Wednesday would change the nature of the judicial elections, according to ISBA legislative counsel Page Felts, who attended the hearing. The original bill would have established non-partisan elections, a system that Allen and Vanderburgh counties currently use. The remaining 88 Hoosier counties use partisan elections.

Felts said that during the hearing, Lake County's representative Brown echoed his previous comments about wanting a consistent system for the entire state. Nothing was attached involving Lake County at this point, she said. Brown has already publicly stated that he plans to introduce legislation in the next session to scrap merit selection in Lake County. If a compromise is reached before the April 29 deadline, the legislation could be forwarded to the governor for review. Gov. Mitch Daniels, an attorney himself who has been a proponent of Indiana's merit-selection system, would have the final decision to approve or veto the bill if it reaches his desk. His office has declined to comment on this legislation during the 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT