ILNews

All appellate judges on the ballot retained by voters

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Collecting more than a million “yes” votes each, Indiana Justices Steven David and Robert Rucker have been retained in office. David faced opposition from some who disagreed with the majority opinion he authored regarding unlawful police entry into homes.

Rucker has received more than 1.17 million yes votes compared to nearly 470,000 no votes, according to results available Wednesday morning on the Indiana Secretary of State's website. When Rucker was last up for retention in 2002, he received 658,260 yes votes compared to 274,775 no votes.

David has received more than 515,000 no votes, but more than 1.14 million Hoosiers voted to keep him on the bench, according to results from the Indiana Secretary of State’s office. This is the first time he’s faced a retention vote since being appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels to the Supreme Court in October 2010. The results on the SOS’s website Wednesday morning are not official and final.

Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik, the only COA judge up for statewide retention, received more than 1.22 million yes votes compared to nearly 440,000 no votes as of Wednesday morning. Judges John Baker, Michael Barnes and Paul Mathias were also retained by voters in the First and Third districts. Baker received nearly 414,000 yes votes compared to around 163,000 no votes. Both Barnes and Mathias had similar numbers - each received nearly 410,000 yes votes compared to nearly 150,000 no votes as of Wednesday morning.


 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT