ILNews

Chinn: A Few Words About Judicial Elections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottI confess that I am a political junkie. I spend too much time watching and listening to the punditry coming from all parts of the ideological spectrum and from both major political parties. (A healthy dose of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is a staple of my morning routine.) And for a political junkie, what could be better than 2012 – the mother of all election years in the four-year cycle of American politics?

But if we avert our gaze from the Presidential Election for a few moments, we have some pretty darn important local elections. This is a judicial election year, and in Marion County this year, we have 20 spots on the ballot for judges of the Marion Superior Court. More than half of the local judiciary in the State’s largest and busiest county is up for election. That fact alone makes the 2012 elections a big deal.

So, if these elections are a big deal for judges, lawyers, and the community, what is your Indianapolis Bar Association’s involvement? First, the Judicial Excellence Political Action Committee (JEPAC) began its work late last year to conduct its survey of Marion County judicial candidates. In accordance with its purpose, JEPAC electronically surveyed Indianapolis Bar Association attorney members, attorneys with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, attorneys with the Marion County Public Defender’s Office and attorneys who have entered an appearance in the past three years before an incumbent judge seeking re-election for whom an email address was available. The instructions to attorneys surveyed were to answer the questions – regarding work ethic, efficiency, judicial ethics, impartiality, legal application, and judicial temperament – only for those judges or judicial candidates with whom the attorneys had experience in professional settings or circumstances within the last three years.

On January 20, 2012, IndyBar released the results of the JEPAC survey. Every person who supplied information to JEPAC and confirmed his or her intention to file a candidacy for the office of Marion Superior Judge was included in the survey. A total of 4,323 emails were delivered in aid of this electronic survey of which 1,150 were returned with a response (conferring a 26.6% response rate). The results, along with biographical information supplied by the judicial candidates, can be reviewed at www.indyjudges.org.

The survey results are intended to be instructive to the candidates, the major political parties at their slating conventions, the voting public at the primary election, and at the general election (in the case of third-party candidacies). But it probably won’t escape your thoughts, that for lawyers to survey judges for this purpose is not without its pitfalls, especially under Marion County’s system of judicial elections. Some question the utility of the JEPAC surveys. Some don’t like what turns out to the system’s strong if not irrebuttable presumption that the primary election will be the last required legal act for installing an equal amount of judges from each major political party. Still others don’t favor the election of judges at all.

Along with these elections come campaign finance issues. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. that in some contexts contributions to a judicial campaign from those appearing in front of a judge raises due process concerns. In response, the IndyBar has created Attorneys for an Independent Bench (AIB) – a political action committee that is able to receive contributions in a way that provides a legal option for lawyers to avoid making direct contributions to judicial campaigns. And retired Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm and retired U.S. Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields recently co-authored a letter to the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission to gain clarification regarding whether Rule 4.1 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits the payment of slating fees from judicial candidates seeking a party endorsement.

I don’t think the answers to questions of reform versus maintaining the status quo – either on the structure of the judicial electoral system or campaign finance for judges – are obvious. Competing values are at stake. So, against this backdrop of uncomfortable questions, the only thing we know for sure is that there are differing and sincerely held viewpoints on every aspect of our judicial elections in Marion County. But the prospect of controversy should not stifle open and good faith discussions about those differences. And the IndyBar has been and will continue to be part of fostering some of those discussions.•

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. 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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT