« Law - Still more on: Maintaining governmental emails in Boston and elsewhere | Main | Ind. Decisions - Tax Court issues two today, denying petitions for rehearing »

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Ind. Courts - "Restructuring state courts"

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial today on the Indiana Judicial Conference's 27-page plan to improve the Indiana system of justice.

(See also this Sept. 17 ILB entry including a link to the 27-page plan, and this ILB followup from Sept. 18th, including an answer to the question: "Okay, what is the Indiana Judicial Conference?")

From the side-bar to today's editorial, a summary of the report's recommendations:

The Indiana Judicial Conference report recommends the following changes in the state’s judicial system:

• All judges would be chosen under the same method.

• Courts would be divided into districts and reorganized. The distinction between circuit and superior courts would be eliminated.

• The state would fully fund the court system.

• The county clerk’s duties would change, giving the courts more responsibility for record-keeping.

• Standards for ongoing education would be higher for judges.

From the editorial:
A panel of Indiana judges has recommended significant and far-reaching changes in the state’s judicial system, including several that would bring welcome improvements.

The biggest changes would require legislative approval and will likely spur much debate among both lawmakers and individual judges, largely over control.

A committee of nine judges – including Allen Circuit Judge Thomas Felts and Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull – developed the recommendations on behalf of the state’s judiciary in a white paper titled “A Blueprint for Excellence and Greater Accountability: Enhanced Access to Justice in Indiana’s Judicial System.” All the recommendations deserve serious consideration, and some clearly should be adopted.

Probably the easiest to advance – and the least controversial – would increase requirements for judges’ ongoing education and set higher qualification standards for court staff.

One overdue and important step would eliminate the patchwork process to select judges that differs widely between counties and mandate a uniform system that eliminates party affiliations and elections. The governor would appoint new judges from a panel selected by bipartisan community commissions, and incumbent judges would face retention votes from citizens. Strict limits would be placed on how judges raise campaign money.

“This could virtually eliminate the negative perception resulting from fundraising from lawyers who practice before the judge and other negative influences of money,” the committee notes in its 27-page report detailing the recommendations.

The proposal would change the fragmented structure of circuit courts, superior courts, probate courts, small claims courts and city and town courts to establish one level of trial courts.

A system that now includes judges, referees, magistrates and court commissioners would have only judges and magistrates, and the magistrates would answer more clearly to trial court judges.

The use of “pro tem” judges – lawyers who serve as temporary judges – would rightly be minimized.

More from the editorial:
Other recommendations deserve further study and will likely face roadblocks.

One of the most significant would replace the system of county-level courts with geographic districts. Some large counties, including Allen, could be districts unto themselves, but others would cross county lines, diffusing power and responsibility. Another would transfer responsibility of record-keeping from the clerk of courts – an elected position – to the courts themselves.

And the report calls for the state to take over financing of the courts system, a move that would please some county officials who complain about the costs of courts on property taxes.

These measures could increase efficiency but also transfer some responsibility from local elected officials to appointed judicial officials. Any such move should be taken with great scrutiny that includes a careful examination of unintended consequences.

The report, issued two weeks ago, in many ways recommends for the courts the same type of modernization and improvements the Kernan-Shepard Commission recommended for Indiana local governments. Like the Kernan-Shepard report, the judicial white paper is likely to stir debate and opposition that is too often centered on protecting turf rather than on what is best for Hoosiers.

The recommendations should spur discussion, formal proposals and – most importantly – action to improve the judiciary.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 1, 2009 09:41 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts