ILNews

Attorney voting for Judicial Nominating Commission to be extended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The voting process to select a lawyer representative to the Judicial Nominating Commission by more than 7,400 eligible attorneys will be extended due to an undetermined glitch that resulted in some lawyers not receiving ballots.

Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the court expects to issue an order extending the deadline for balloting that had been scheduled to conclude Nov. 19. Attorneys in good standing in the Court of Appeals Second District are eligible to vote.

Two Indianapolis attorneys – Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll and Cline Farrell Christie & Lee partner Lee Christie – are on the ballot to succeed William Winingham, whose term on the seven-member commission expires Dec. 31.

Dolan said 7,439 attorneys are eligible to vote, but it became clear some of them hadn’t received ballots sent out from the Supreme Court clerk’s office in recent weeks. She said Carroll and Christie were notified and supportive of efforts to contact eligible voters and provide ballots to those who didn’t receive them.

“We know some attorneys have not received ballots but we cannot seem to uncover the pattern,” Dolan said. The clerk’s office will be contacting eligible voters and “implementing a plan to ensure individuals who have not voted and not obtained a ballot will receive a ballot and can vote.” She said ballots will be counted for attorneys who’ve already returned them, so they need to take no further action.

The commission is comprised of three attorney members elected by lawyers in each of the three COA districts, as well as three non-lawyer members appointed by the governor from each district. The chief justice chairs the panel, which interviews and recommends finalists for vacancies on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals from which the governor selects appointees.

Elected and appointed members serve three-year terms, so those chosen to serve terms that begin next year will play a role in deciding who will replace Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who will turn 75 in 2016 and face mandatory retirement.  

The commission members also serve as the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which investigates complaints against judges.

Court of Appeals District 2 includes these counties: Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White.





 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT