« Ind. Decisions - Ex-Marion County prosecutor's employee pleads guilty in fatal DUI case | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Stubborn Fees Case May Have Met Its Match in 7th Circuit" »

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Ind. Courts - "St. Joe County judges' election bill gets Senate OK"; plus some observations from the ILB [Revised]

Updating earlier ILB entries, including this one from yesterday, Jeff Parrott of the South Bend Tribune has a lengthy story today on yesterday's Senate action:

A bill that would make St. Joseph Superior Court judges popularly elected for the first time in 35 years cleared another legislative hurdle Wednesday when it passed the Senate 35-15.

The bill [HB 1491], authored by state Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, now has cleared both chambers of the General Assembly, after passing the House 88-3 on Feb. 2. Its Senate passage came on the final day that House bills could be approved by that chamber.

But Fry said he was not ready to celebrate yet.

"It's another good sign the bill will become law, but it has a way to go," Fry said.

That's because an amendment added by Senate Republicans would create a new three-judge Court of Appeals panel, something strongly opposed by House Democrats, including Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, Fry said.

The bill now will go to a conference committee, where leaders from both parties will try to forge a compromise.

More from the story:
The Senate-passed version would create a sixth three-judge appellate panel. Fry said Democrats oppose it because the five existing panels are adequately handling their caseloads, and implementing the new panel would cost $2 million to $3 million, at a time when the state budget is under extraordinary pressure. He said Republicans pushed for the add-on because all but one of the state's 15 appeals court judges were appointed by Democratic governors, and the GOP wants Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to appoint the new panel before leaving office at the end of 2012.
That is incorrect, Governor Daniels has appointed both Cale Bradford (in 2007) and Elaine Brown (in 2008) to the Court of Appeals.

I'm not clear about this fiscal note -- It says (at the bottom of p. 1):

(Revised) Sixth District Court of Appeals- This new three-judge panel would begin operating on January 1, 2010.
This is perhaps a typo, the new panel would begin operating Jan. 1, 2011.

So this year's biennial budget would need to cover the new panel's first six months of operation, assuming HB 1491 becomes law, as the budget now under consideration covers both FY 2010 and FY 2011 - running from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011. That six month period would require an appropriation of $1,357,449.

The cost in subsequent biennial budgets would start at over $2.2 a year, or over $4.4 million for the two-year period.

A second point is that the current Court of Appeals caseload does not justify the creation of another panel. The Court is well run, smoothly operating, and has no trouble handling the cases. Earlier this year, I heard from very reliable sources that there were very few cases before the Court. Business has picked up since then and the Court is again at what appears to me to be its normal load, which the current COA judges handle with much efficiency. It would seem that some professional caseload analysis should precede the creation of a new multi-million dollar a year panel.

The Tribune story today continues:

Scott Ruszkowski, president of the South Bend Fraternal Order of Police, said he was "thrilled" with the Senate vote. The bill would require the county's Superior Court judges, who handle both criminal and civil cases, to be popularly elected as nonpartisan candidates. It would overturn the current process of merit selection, in place since 1973, in which a committee of lawyers, judges and citizens interviews judicial candidates and forwards a group of finalists to the governor, who makes the selection.

Judges then face a public retention vote every six years. Of Indiana's 92 counties, only St. Joseph and Lake use the process for Superior Court judges.

Ruszkowski has long argued that some local judges are too soft on criminals and should be more accountable to the public.

"It's some people over and over that we're dealing with," Ruszkowski said. "Rapists, child molesters and drug dealers are out on the street over and over again. When does it end?"

Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, was among the many Democrats who voted against the bill Wednesday. Many merit selection advocates say popularly elected judges might lose their impartiality if they preside over individuals and interest groups who have donated to their campaigns. But Broden said he has a more pressing concern. Judges sometimes must make decisions that are not popular, such as protecting the rights of minorities.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 16, 2009 08:02 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts