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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT