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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT