Deborah Daniels: Reasons to vote yes on justice retention this fall

Most people are thinking only of the presidential election as they weigh how they will vote in November. There is also some awareness of “down-ballot” candidates.

But almost no one is aware of the presence on the ballot of Indiana Supreme Court justices, who stand for retention every 10 years. Most people are surprised when voting to be confronted with the choice of retaining or retiring sitting justices.

Perhaps this is the reason a whopping 30% of Indiana voters routinely vote “no” on retention of justices, no matter who they are. Some just don’t know enough about them; others vote on so-called principle—“well, someone ought to vote no,” regardless of how qualified the justice might be.

This is not the year to join that group of naysayers.

We have a Supreme Court bench in Indiana composed of intelligent, thoughtful, objective arbiters of the law. Former Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan, appointed by then Democratic Gov. Evan Bayh, recently complimented the full court of five Republican appointees for its nonpartisanship and “fidelity to deciding cases based on the law and the proven facts without any reference to extraneous factors.”

This is exactly what we want on our court—not ideologues who decide cases based on partisan preferences, but those who faithfully apply the law and the federal and Indiana constitutions to the facts of the cases before them.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush has been praised by lawyers at both ends of the political spectrum for her intelligence, thoughtful objectivity and effective leadership of the court. She was recently reappointed chief justice after having served in that role since 2014, with the unanimous support of both her colleagues on the court and the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission. Sullivan refers to her “sharp and inquisitive mind” and the “vision, commitment and imagination” she brings to her role.

Rush, and the court as a whole, are recognized as national models of what a chief justice and a supreme court should be: quietly going about their work without rancor or partisanship and faithfully applying both the federal and state constitutions as written, without engaging in personal policy preferences. They are the furthest thing from “judicial activism” that exists in the country. And Rush is nationally recognized, respected by both appointed chief justices and those politically elected from both parties.

Not aware of what the court does to improve Hoosiers’ lives? Here are just a few examples:

It has more than tripled the number of problem-solving courts tailored to address the unique needs of offenders and put them on a path to a crime-free future. The court helped create, and led, a children’s commission to improve the lives of children throughout the state. Closely related to that effort, it created a child abuse registry to inform educators and others of the history of abuse of offenders and protect children from future abuse.

It has further strengthened public safety by creating a database of drug offenders that pharmacists can check before selling ingredients for making methamphetamine.

It has trained all Indiana judges on mental health and substance abuse issues, a must in a system that unfortunately serves as a primary referral source for treatment.

It has increased transparency, introducing cameras in the courtroom and 24/7 online public access to the courts.

There are three top-quality Supreme Court justices on the ballot for retention in November: Rush, Justice Mark Massa and Justice Derek Molter. Everyone who cares about the quality of life in Indiana should vote to retain them.•

__________

Daniels is a retired partner of Krieg DeVault LLP, a former U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. attorney general and former president of the Sagamore Institute. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.

Click here for more Forefront columns.