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

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