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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT