ILNews

Christie elected to Judicial Nominating Commission

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers have elected Indianapolis attorney Lee Christie to the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Christie, a partner at Cline Farrell Christie & Lee, won the election for the lawyer position on the panel representing Court of Appeals District 2, defeating Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll by a vote of 1,435 to 1,159, according to results released late Tuesday.

The seven-member commission interviews and recommends candidates to fill vacancies on Indiana’s appellate courts and also serves as the Judicial Qualifications Commission that investigates complaints against judges.

The panel consists of three lawyers and three non-lawyers from each of the geographic COA districts and is chaired by the chief justice. Christie will replace Indianapolis attorney William Winingham, whose term expires at the end of the year.

The clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court tallied votes and certified the results. Voting was extended through Tuesday after an untold number of attorneys eligible to cast ballots did not receive them.

Approximately 35 percent of eligible attorneys voted. Christie, along with members elected or appointed to the board in the next couple of years, will participate in decisions that will shape the Indiana Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brent Dickson will turn 75, hitting the mandatory retirement age for judges, in the final year of Christie’s three-year term.

While the commission makes recommendations of appointees to the governor, commission members select the chief justice.
 
Court of Appeals District 2 includes Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White Counties.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT