News & Updates

By a 5-4 vote, the state judicial nominating commission voted to bar its members from contributing to or actively participating in any judicial race in the state, including the retention elections of three supreme court justices. Those who voted in favor of the policy want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, while those who voted against it believe that public disclosure of support for a candidate would be sufficient.

The house judiciary committee rejected by a 7-7 vote a proposal calling for all of the state’s judges to be chosen in popular elections. A majority vote was needed for the bill to advance to the full legislature. The measure also failed to get a majority vote in the senate finance committee.

Governor Haslam indicated that he would support moving to a federal selection system for the state’s appellate judges, after a senate committee approved such a proposal. Earlier this year Haslam joined with Lieutenant Governor Ramsey and House Speaker Harwell to sponsor a bill that would constitutionalize the current merit selection and retention plan. A third measure calling for contested elections of judges is also under consideration.

The Republican candidate for attorney general voiced his support for moving to a federal system of selecting judges. Such a proposal passed a house committee in March and is under consideration in the senate judiciary committee.

Commentators speculated that this year’s judicial races could break past records for campaign spending. In 2010, with two seats on the ballot, $11 million was spent on TV ads alone, most of which were negative in tone and were funded by outside groups not required to file campaign finance reports.

The three supreme court justices up for retention in November are, reluctantly, campaigning to keep their seats. An effort known as Restore Justice 2012 has been launched to defeat them, citing “activist” decisions in cases involving health care, school vouchers, and corporate liability.

In an en banc ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit restored provisions of the state code of judicial conduct that bar judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting or accepting contributions from groups of fewer than 20 people, and from endorsing other political candidates.

On March 14, Senate leaders agreed to move forward with confirmation votes for 14 judicial nominees who had earned unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The deal avoided the need for procedural votes to force confirmation votes through the Senate floor.  On March 15, the Senate overwhelming voted to confirm two federal district court judges.

The house judiciary committee approved by a 9-6 vote a measure that would constitutionalize the Tennessee Plan for selecting judges.

A district court judge struck down a ballot referendum scheduled for the June primary that called for the election of supreme court justices by district rather than statewide. According to the judge, the measure would alter the constitutional qualifications for service on the supreme court.

A state bar task force is considering a variety of judicial election reforms, including creating a response committee to identify false statements made in judicial campaigns, providing a voter guide with information about judicial candidates, and encouraging candidates to sign a “fair campaign” pledge.

Voters challenged a June 2012 ballot referendum calling for supreme court justices to be elected by district rather than statewide. The attorney for those challenging the measure asserts that the measure adds a requirement that supreme court justices live in the district from which they are elected and that legislators cannot alter such requirements by referendum.

Former chief justice Roy Moore won a three-way Republican primary race for the chief justice spot and will run against the Democratic nominee in November. Moore was removed from the supreme court in 2003 for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state judicial building.

The house judiciary committee is considering two bills that would move from partisan elections to merit selection with senate confirmation for the state’s three appellate courts. Members of the judicial nominating commission would be appointed by the governor, legislative leaders, and civic  and other groups and would be diverse in political, geographic, gender, and ethnic backgrounds.

A bill that would have expanded the governor’s authority over the state’s judicial nominating commissions stalled after disagreement between the house and senate over whether the governor’s proposed authority to remove and replace commission members at will should extend to appointees of past governors.

The judicial nominating commission created last April by Governor Perdue held hearings in three cities to hear from the public about the qualities and characteristics judges should possess. The commission screens and recommends applicants for positions on the supreme court, court of appeals, and superior court.

The senate rejected a proposal supported by Governor Brownback that would have eliminated the judicial nominating commission's role in screening applicants for the state's court of appeals and given the senate a role in confirming appointments to this court.

Only one attorney applied to fill a district court vacancy. Some speculated that potential applicants were discouraged by the fact that the appointee must run in November to keep the seat, for which another attorney has already filed to run.

A Democratic lawmaker proposed a public financing system for supreme court elections, pointing to concerns about justices appearing to be influenced by campaign contributors.

The state judicial nominating commission submitted the names of two men and one woman to the governor for the vacancy created by Chief Justice Randall Shepard's March retirement. The governor has 60 days to appoint one of the three nominees. Indiana is currently one of three states with no women on its supreme court.