News & Updates

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.

Governor Branstad recently made thirty appointments to the state’s district judicial nominating commissions. Many of them oppose the merit selection process, and at least one of them was active in the campaign to defeat the three justices up for retention in 2010.

The last election for supreme court chief justice, in 2006, was the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history in terms of fundraising, but the three Republicans candidates for the seat in 2012 are setting records so far for what they are not raising.

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 house of representatives approved a measure that would expand the governor’s power over the state’s judicial nominating commissions. The governor appoints the nine members of each commission, with the bar making recommendations for four of those members.

The District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission reported an increase in judicial applicants from 2010 to 2011, including an upswing in the number of applicants from larger law firms. The commission's chair attributed this to a greater effort by the commission to reach out to attorneys representing a cross-section of the bar.

A new site devoted to procedural fairness in the courts was recently launched by Judge Kevin Burke, District Judge in the Hennepin County (Minn.) District Court; Judge Steve Leben, Judge, Kansas Court of Appeals; the National Center for State Courts (with researcher David Rottman as its lead blogging participant); and Professor Tom Tyler, of Yale Law School.

The judicial nominating commission conducted final interviews of applicants for the supreme court vacancy created by Chief Justice Randall Shepard’s retirement. Three of the finalists are women, and Indiana is one of three states without a woman on its supreme court.

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.

Three justices are on the ballot in November, and their retention is expected to be hotly contested. One group that has mounted an anti-retention campaign is Restore Justice 2012, whose website lays out the justices’ voting records on issues of interest to the group. The group also unsuccessfully challenged two justices in 2010.

The house of representatives approved a plan that will, over time, eliminate 36 judgeships and cut $5.7 million from the state’s annual budget. The chief justice characterized the plan as “unprecedented” and “the largest cut in judgeships ever accomplished in the United States.”

Governor Christie criticized the Democratic-led senate for not yet having scheduled confirmation hearings for the supreme court nominees he named in late January. According to a judiciary committee member, they are looking into financial issues involving one of the nominees.

Of the four candidates vying for a supreme court seat in the March Democratic primary, the incumbent and her appellate court challenger received the highest marks from Chicago-area bar associations that rate judges. The other two candidates were found “not qualified” and “not recommended” in various polls.

A Democratic legislator's resolution to remove Justice Michael Gableman from the court for alleged violation of state law and the code of judicial conduct has received little support, attracting only four co-sponsors.

Though they have been proponents of electing judges in the past, two justices are calling for moving to some form of merit selection for the state's supreme court. Justices Crooks and Bradley cited concerns about the surge in spending on supreme court races, as well as the lack of meaningful disclosure and recusal rules.

A divided supreme court altered its rules to allow chief justices to serve successive two-year terms, and up to eight years, and to be selected on criteria in addition to seniority. The revisions are based on the recommendations of a judicial branch study group.

Governor Gregoire encouraged trial court applicants and candidates for reelection to submit themselves to being rated by minority bar associations. In making judicial appointments, the governor consults minority bar ratings as well as traditional bar ratings.

A judge under indictment for soliciting a bribe from a judicial applicant (among other charges) resigned from the bench to avoid disciplinary proceedings regarding offensive comments he made about gay people.

The House of Delegates gathering at the American Bar Association's Midyear Meeting in New Orleans covered court funding, civics education, attacks on judges who make unpopular decisions, and other challenges in the system and the profession.

Though he believes he has enough votes to move the proposal out of committee, a Republican legislator agreed to postpone until the end of the session consideration of his bill calling for popular election of all judges. In January, the Republican governor, senate speaker, and house speaker jointly proposed a constitutional amendment establishing merit selection for appellate judges.