IBJNews

Indiana chief justice pick may not be immune to politics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After two years of transition, the Indiana Supreme Court will soon be entering a new generation of leadership. And even though Gov. Mike Pence won't make the appointment, experts say politics could influence the selection of a new chief justice.

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson's announcement last week that he was stepping aside as chief justice, along with the relative youth of most of the remaining justices, has created the possibility of another long-term leader like former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who served as the state's top judge for 25 years.

Three of the four remaining justices are in their 50s. Justices must retire at age 75. Dickson is 72. A state commission made up of three lawyers picked by their peers and three gubernatorial appointees, led by the sitting chief justice, will meet Aug. 6 to select a replacement for Dickson, who is staying on as an associate justice until he hits retirement age.

Their pick could affect life in Indiana for years. The Supreme Court interprets both the constitutionality of Indiana statutes and the intent of the legislators who wrote them. Their decisions can not only set legal precedent, but influence legislation. The chief justice leads the court and serves as its public face.

The selection process is designed to be immune from politics, but experts say it may not be as pure as it appears.

"The governor tends to get the people they want," said David Orentlicher, a law professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and a former Democratic state representative.

Three of the four eligible justices were appointed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican. Those three are all in their 50s and, if chosen, could rival Shepard's run as chief justice.

Justice Robert Rucker, the only African-American on the court and the only one appointed by a Democrat, is 67 and would be limited to eight years as chief justice if chosen.

Joel Schumm, an Indiana University law professor who follows the court, said he doesn't expect Rucker to be interested in the position because he's approaching the mandatory retirement age.

That leaves the younger justices, none of whom have been on the court longer than four years. Justice Steven David, 57, was appointed in October 2010. Justices Mark Massa, 53, and Loretta Rush, 56, both were appointed in 2012.

All the justices declined to comment.

Choosing someone without longtime experience on the high court might seem unlikely, but Shepard had been on the court for only two years when he was selected.

The choice facing the commission that will select the new chief justice could be fairly simple if the justices, who will be separately interviewed Aug. 6, endorse one of their own — as happened when Dickson was selected two years ago. It could be another thing altogether if there's competition for the job.

Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, acknowledged that the process is supposed to be politically pure, but said that's difficult to accomplish.

"There are checks and balances in order to minimize it, but politics are always going to play a role in these things," Downs said.

Shepard, the former chief justice, agreed — to a point.

"The constitution has created a process that constrains political effects, but recognizes that the people in political office — the governor, for instance — are the people's voice," he said in a phone interview.

"No one would contend that they're completely immune from the political process, and indeed, you wouldn't want them to be," Shepard added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

ADVERTISEMENT