Election choices fade for Marion Superior Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Three unslated contenders for Marion Superior judgeships have withdrawn their names from the May primary ballot, including two sitting judges who between them have almost a half-century of judicial experience.

By the noon deadline on Feb. 25, incumbent Marion Superior Judges Kenneth H. Johnson and Gary L. Miller withdrew their names after filing their candidacies late last week. Both were overlooked at the county Republican Party's slating convention Feb. 16.

Indianapolis attorney Angela Dow Davis, who'd filed to run against the Democrats' slate also chosen Feb. 16, withdrew her name by the deadline. Davis would only say she wasn't slated and decided for personal family reasons not to run.

Each party has eight Superior Court judgeships in the primary, since state law balances the court between the Republicans and Democrats.

Judges Miller and Johnson said they were surprised and disappointed about not being endorsed by their party, but they supported the system and decided it would be best for them personally and the Republican Party not to run.

"In my opinion, the convention produced a number of inequities that ended a 30-year distinguished career," Judge Johnson wrote to Indiana Lawyer, explaining his decision to withdraw. "In light of these events, it is my opinion that a contested primary would not be in the best interest of our party and that we, as Republicans, need to continue to build on the excitement and momentum gained from last November's victories."

The judge spent an "emotional, harrowing, and sleepless" weekend weighing a decision, ultimately deciding that it would be best for his family and political party to not run against the slate, he said, citing his lifelong work of trying to further the goals of his political party.

"If you run against the slate, this all becomes hardball and the gloves really come off," he said. "The personal costs are so much greater."

Judge Johnson has been on the bench since 1979, most recently handling civil cases and multi-district litigation involving mass tort cases on asbestos and silica. Among his accomplishments is Schultz v. Ford Motor, which was the first case in the nation to involve a paperless trial.

Judge Miller, who's been on the bench since 1991, said he also welcomed the additional weekend to make a decision.

"I was not happy about the surprising results on the day of slating, but rather than endure 10 weeks of a bitter and costly campaign, I thought it would be better for everyone this way," he said. "I had support and financial commitments, and so that wouldn't have been an issue. But the whole process would have been unseemly, and that's not what I want."

Judge Miller credited the slated candidates as all being "good, honorable, and qualified" for the job, and said in the end it comes down to them doing a better job at courting precinct committeemen and party leaders.

"Quite clearly, this is something I didn't do as well," he said. "People who might have half the story or ignore it completely have all kinds of reasons that are just silly, from my not wearing a suit to being out of town for a week before the (convention) and missing forums. The fact is, I didn't get slated and now I'm not running. That's it."

The Indianapolis Bar Association's Judicial Excellence Political Action Committee recently released its 2008 Judicial Candidate Qualification survey results. Judge Miller received an approval rating of 85.5 percent and Judge Johnson received an 82.6 percent approval mark. Davis got a 41.2 percent approval rating. The surveys go to members of the IBA and Marion County Bar Association, as well as county prosecutor and public defender offices.

As a result of the judges' decisions to withdraw, all eight slated Republicans will be elected to the bench. Those on the Republican slate are incumbent Judges Cynthia Jane Ayers, Dave Certo, Robyn L. Moberly, Marilyn A. Moores, and Ted Sosin; as well as criminal Commissioner Marc T. Rothenberg, and attorneys Kurt Eisgruber, and Timothy W. Oakes. The Democratic slate lists incumbent Judges Annie Christ-Garcia, David J. Dreyer, Patrick L. McCarty, Tanya Walton Pratt, David Shaheed, and presiding Judge Gerald S. Zore; as well as attorneys Garland E. Graves, and James B. Osborn. On the Democrats' side, Washington Township Small Claims Judge Kimberly J. Brown is the only unslated choice on the ballot.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.