ILNews

Editorial: Election Day 2010 provides cause for concern

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Years ago we were a little bemused when we first heard a judge on the Court of Appeals who happened to be facing a retention vote worry aloud that remaining on the bench may not be such a sure thing.

We were acquainted enough with this particular judge’s legal work to believe that this judge had nothing to fear, and yet it was plain that this jurist’s words were not mere lip-service and an attempt to sound “humble.” We learned of no campaign aimed at turning this judge out of office, and of course the judge was retained.

This particular judge worried aloud again during the most recent election cycle about remaining on the bench, again in spite of no organized effort to turn the judge out of office.

But one need only look outside Indiana’s borders to glimpse the sort of goings on that give reasonable people a reason to feel anxious about the state of judicial elections in general and merit selection in particular.

All five COA judges were retained by large margins, and all five trial judges in the Lake Superior Court and the one St. Joseph Superior Court judge were all kept on the bench.

Yet merit selection is no guarantee that sanity and reason will always prevail.

Look to the west, where three of Iowa’s justices were turned out of office after a retention vote on Election Day 2010. The three justices on Iowa’s Supreme Court were targeted by groups seeking to oust them after the high court there in 2009 unanimously ruled in the case that cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry under state law.

Or look directly north to Michigan, where in spite of running “non-partisan” judicial elections, Republicans are said to have gained control of the Michigan Supreme Court with a 4-3 majority.

Or look immediately to the west to Illinois, where the chief justice was forced to undertake a brisk campaign to keep his seat on the bench after becoming targeted by interests seeking to portray him as soft of crime, and other groups seeking caps on jury awards in malpractice cases.

We firmly believe in the right to free speech and the rights of citizens to express their displeasure with their judges. But to be frank, we find the prospect of witnessing the members of our appellate court filling the trunks of their cars with campaign materials to distribute as they dash across the state to lobby to keep their seats on the bench a bit nightmarish.

We have it on reasonable authority that an attempt to turn back judicial merit selection will not be put forth during the coming session of the Indiana General Assembly.

Given the election cycle we’ve just witnessed, we’re not putting much faith in that proclamation.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT