ILNews

Attorney survey on Marion County judiciary begins

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eighteen Marion County judges will be on the ballot in the May 2012 primary. The Indianapolis Bar Association is asking attorneys to voice their opinions about those jurists.

The IBA’s Judicial Excellence Political Action Committee began its evaluation today of 2012 candidates for the Marion Superior bench, asking attorneys to fill out the online survey being sent to all members of the IBA as well as those with the public defender and prosecuting attorney’s offices. The survey closes on Jan. 18.

One change this year asks attorneys to evaluate only those judges or attorneys on the ballot that they have direct experience with,  IBA president Scott Chinn explained. He encourages all attorneys to participate if they’re able.

“The public gets top vote, but really their knowledge is limited and is mostly derived from the media or public accounts of trials,” Chinn said. “With the limited information out there about these important public offices, the bar for a long time has seen the value in surveying people who know these judges the best, in order to help inform the public.”

By law, the number of Marion Superior judges facing election is split between the Republican and Democratic parties. Twenty judicial positions will be decided in 2012. Nine sitting judges from each of the two political parties will be on the ballot, and one judge from each party is retiring. On the Republican side, judges facing re-election this year include Sheila Carlisle, Michael Keele, Bob Altice, Clark Rogers, Lisa Borges, William Young, William Nelson, Reuben Hill and Carol Orbison. The Democrat judges include Heather Welch, Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Grant Hawkins, Jose Salinas, Linda Brown, Tom Carroll, David Shaheed, Barb Crawford and John Hanley. Democrat Barb Collins and Republican S.K. Reid are retiring.

Attorneys who are not currently serving on the Marion Superior Court but  submitted their names to JEPAC for evaluation by the Jan. 6 deadline include Democrats Greg Bowes, John Boyce, John M.T. Chavis II and Mark King; and Republicans Rom Byron, Amy M. Jones, James A. Joven, Helen Marchal and Steven Rubick.

Each political party slates its list of judges to appear on the May primary ballot in Marion County, with the Republican slating convention scheduled for Jan. 28 and the Democrat slating convention scheduled for Feb. 11. The filing deadline for candidates is Feb. 13, and anyone who isn’t chosen to be on a particular slate can decide to run against the slate for the May primary election.

Non-IBA attorneys who’ve entered an appearance in the last three years and who would like to complete the survey should contact IBA director Julie Armstrong at jarmstrong@indybar.org.

In October, the St. Joseph County Bar Association released the results of its 2011 Judicial Survey that was sent to attorneys last summer. The survey included eight judges, including the three who will be up for retention election in November 2012:  Judges Jerome Frese, Jenny Pitts Manier and Margot Reagan. Full results of that survey can be found online.

The Lake County Bar Association also conducted a survey last year and released results in October. That attorney survey includes judges who aren’t on the upcoming ballot but might face a retention vote in coming years. Eight judges were included, including the four who will be on the ballot in 2012: Diane Boswell, Jeffrey Dywan, Salvador Vasquez and Jesse Villalpando.

 As in St. Joseph County, Lake County judges are chosen by a local nominating commission and selected by the governor, laterfacing a retention vote.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT