« Ind. Law - More on: "Farm interests oppose Indiana's puppy mill bill" | Main | Environment - "Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling" »

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Ind. Courts - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks in South Bend and Fort Wayne

Here are some earlier ILB entries on the St. Joe County judges' election issue. This entry from April 2nd contained the news that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a proponent of merit selection of judges, would appear by St. Joe County on April 22nd, in a visit sponsored by the St. Joseph County Bar Association. Here are some stories about the visit.

Tom Coyle of the AP reported on April 23rd:

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor believes merit selection is the best way to choose judges and keep them independent.

O'Connor, speaking yesterday in South Bend, said it's hard for judges to remain impartial knowing their decisions will influence how long they keep their jobs.

She also told a crowd of about 500 people attending a St. Joseph County Bar Association luncheon that the money being spent by people running for the judiciary in states that don't have merit selection is causing people to trust judges less.

"I hope that lawmakers will be cautious and look at what an independent judiciary has meant to this nation," she said. "Our judges must be capable of staying above politics if they're going to serve the function of making impartial decisions."

O'Connor spoke hours before lawmakers in Indianapolis began work on versions of a bill passed by both the House and Senate that would make St. Joseph Superior Court judges popularly elected for the first time since 1973. * * *

State Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, the author of the bill, questioned why people in Indiana should care about what O'Connor has to say, since she is from Arizona.

"This is an issue for the people of St. Joseph County," he said.

Supporters of electing judges argue it makes them more accountable to those they serve.

O'Connor said, however, that judges aren't as effective if they have to worry about whether their decisions will be popular. She also said that elections bring in other elements that harm the judiciary.

"The money and vitriol being put into judicial campaigns has reached new and dangerous levels," she said.

She pointed to a 2004 race for the Illinois Supreme Court in which the two opponents spent $9 million campaigning for office. The winner, Lloyd Karmeier, called it "obscene for a judicial race."

She also said people who oppose merit selection frequently cite "judicial tyranny" as a reason why judges should be elected. She dismissed that, saying: "Our forefathers would be surprised to find they were establishing a tyrannical system when they wrote the Constitution."

Jeff Parrott of the South Bend Tribune reported on April 23rd:
SOUTH BEND — Although she fears it might already be too late, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor came to town Wednesday to urge Indiana lawmakers to preserve St. Joseph County's merit selection system for picking trial court judges.

"The judiciary must be capable of operating above politics if it's going to serve its function of making impartial decisions about legal issues that come before them," O'Connor told a crowd of nearly 500, mostly attorneys, who packed the Palais Royale ballroom.

Her remarks came as an Indiana General Assembly conference committee negotiates details of a bill, passed last week by the Senate and in February by the House. The measure would, for the first time since 1973, require the county's Superior Court judges to be popularly elected in nonpartisan races. * * *

O'Connor, who served on the Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006, warned of the need to keep judges independent of the "passions" and "emotions" of voters, allowing them to follow the law in making decisions, even unpopular ones.

"If judges are subject to regular and competitive elections, they cannot help but be aware that if the public is not satisfied with the outcome of a particular case, it will hurt their chances of continuing to serve as judges," she said.

O'Connor also lamented the growing role that campaign finance is playing in judicial elections.

"We're at a dangerous moment in the history of our country," she said. "The amount of money being poured into judicial elections has skyrocketed in the last two decades."

As an example of the problems this can cause, O'Connor talked about a recent West Virginia Supreme Court case, in which a coal company executive contributed more than $3 million to the campaign of a state Supreme Court justice, and that justice then cast the deciding vote in favor of the coal company.

"It just does not look good, does it?" she said. "Why would a state want to subject itself to an influx of money into its courtrooms?"

But Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, who authored the House version and is one of the conferees, was unimpressed by O'Connor's presence. He said O'Connor is a shining example of how all judges, whether they are appointed or elected, are political.

Mark Peterson of WNDU reported on April 22nd:
Typically, the opinions of U.S. Supreme Court Justices are the only ones that matter, but it remains to be seen how much weight will be carried by an opinion issued today.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor came to South Bend to speak against a proposal to switch to elected judges in the St. Joseph Superior Court. * * *

O’Connor’s speech was sponsored by the St. Joseph County Bar Association.

“The runner is rounding third and headed toward home I guess at this point so we’ll see,” said South Bend Mayor Stephen Luecke who attended today’s program. “Obviously a lot of energy in the room today and I’m sure that there will be many people lobbying legislators on this issue.”

O’Connor’s visit perhaps lost some of its potential punch—at least outside the confines of the Palais Royale--because she banned all electronic recording devices. Her words won’t be heard far and wide. * * *“Well I hope it makes a difference,” said Indiana State Bar Association President William Jonas. “It is a voice among many voices.”

There are indications that today’s visit by Justice O’Connor won’t be the only attempt of local elected judge opponents to win friends in high places.

“We were hoping to defeat this in the House, we didn't. We were hoping to defeat this in the Senate, we didn't.
It’s in the conference committee—I doubt we'll defeat it there, so now it’s on to the governor. And the governor can veto it, and we're hoping he will,” said Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis of the St. Joseph Superior Court.

There’s now something about the bill that is bound to get the governor’s attention. Thanks to an amendment added by the senate, the bill is now costly.

H.B. 1491 no longer deals solely with judicial selection in St. Joseph County. It also calls for adding three additional judges to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

“I would suggest and I think there are a lot of people who believe, right now is not the time to spend three million dollars on a new court when the unemployment fund is bankrupt,” said Jonas.

“What's the purpose of this bill,” asked Judge Scopelitis. “It’s obviously just to remove merit selection from St. Joe County and it’s going to cost the state three to four million dollars to do it.”

In Indianapolis today the conference committee working on H.B. 1491 met for the first time this afternoon.

One change was made to the bill according to committee member Rep. Jackie Walorski.

The bill started out calling for non-partisan elections to seat superior court judges. The conference committee report now calls for partisan elections—meaning the judicial candidates would have to declare a party affiliation.

Kelly Soderlund of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette took a totally different approach in her story on April 24th on O'Connor's appearance in Fort Wayne the following evening. Some quotes:
As soon as she stepped onstage, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the boss.

O’Connor, 79, was greeted with a standing ovation Thursday night by the sold-out crowd at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne’s John and Ruth Rhinehart Music Center. Wearing a shimmering black and white blouse over black pants, the white-haired icon said a quick "thank you" to the crowd, then motioned for people to stop applauding.

"You have to sit down, because this is long," O’Connor said of her speech.

The former justice, who stepped down from the bench in 2006, made her third trip to Fort Wayne as part of IPFW’s Omnibus Lecture Series, the last for the school year. She drew the largest crowd of the year, forcing the university to administer tickets to the usual come-as-you-please lecture and creating a crowded parking lot and heavy traffic around the university.

O’Connor’s speech, titled "Advancing the Rights of Humanity," detailed a number of Supreme Court cases she believes have been momentous in the country’s history. She considers the hallmark of social change in the 20th century to be the increasing extension and protection of individual rights. * * *

After her speech, O’Connor took questions from the crowd, taking a no-nonsense approach and letting people know up front how she planned to handle the banter.

"I may not answer them, but you’re free to ask them," O’Connor said.

She lived up to her statement, staring stoically at a man who didn’t ask a question but only gushed about her and the Supreme Court.

"Well, that doesn’t sound like a question, but thank you," said O’Connor, who quickly moved on to the next questioner.

Another man asked whether lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court should be abolished, considering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is battling pancreatic cancer and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in 2005 while serving.

"Well, you’d have to amend the Constitution, and that’s very hard to do, so good luck," O’Connor said.

One woman asked what it felt like to be the deciding vote on a number of cases. O’Connor brushed off the notion of being the swing vote in 5-4 decisions.

"Well, it wasn’t just me," O’Connor said. "You could look at any of the five and say, ‘You made the deciding vote.’ "

When she was asked a question she didn’t know the answer to or didn’t have background on, O’Connor didn’t answer. One woman asked whether O’Connor knew when gays would have the same protection under the law as everybody else.

"Well, I don’t know," O’Connor shot back. "Do you?"

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 26, 2009 09:14 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts