ILNews

Editorial: State should avoid selection slugfests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Indiana's lawmakers plan to look at judicial retention during this summer's study session. The Commission on Courts will study the current system and how voters get information about the judges who face such a vote. Three of our five justices are on the November ballot, as is our tax court judge, and one of our Court of Appeals judges. 
  
We'd like to see the average voter know more about our appellate courts. We know the high court is working to make information about the judges who are up for retention easily available to the average voter on the state's Web site, www.in.gov, and we applaud that effort. Once that's completed, we'd encourage our readers to let their hometown newspapers know about it to help spread the word. 
  
All our judges facing retention ought to be returned to the bench. We have a good thing going here in Indiana, and we're not the only ones who think so. We wrote in a recent post to our blog, First Impressions, about a conversation one of IL's reporters had not too long ago with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. She told us she keeps in touch with our Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and often looks to Indiana for guidance and insight on various issues. It's something we've heard other jurists say when they talk about the civility displayed by our bench and bar. 
  
The retention issue for Indiana's appellate judges was fixed 40 years ago and does not need to be broken. In fact, we'd like to see a version of the state model replicated in trial courts. We've said it before, but it bears repeating; we're going to lose a great deal of judicial talent come the next election cycle because judges didn't play politics well enough or got outspent by an opponent. 
 
We hope the Commission on Courts will listen to the words of our chief justice and not let Indiana go the way of the "multi-million dollar special interest slugfests that are a common feature in our neighboring states and elsewhere in the country." It's no way to choose a judge.• 

Opinions: Readers may offer opinions concerning Indiana Lawyer stories and other legal issues. Readers may respond immediately by viewing the "submissions" section on our Web site, www.theindianalawyer.com.  We reserve the right to edit letters for space requirements and to reproduce letters on Indiana Lawyer's Web site and on online databases. We do not publish anonymous letters. Direct letters to editor Rebecca Collier at rcollier@IBJ.com or 41 E. Washington St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT