ILNews

Election choices fade for Marion Superior Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Three unslated contenders for Marion Superior judgeships have withdrawn their names from the May primary ballot, including two sitting judges who between them have almost a half-century of judicial experience.

By the noon deadline on Feb. 25, incumbent Marion Superior Judges Kenneth H. Johnson and Gary L. Miller withdrew their names after filing their candidacies late last week. Both were overlooked at the county Republican Party's slating convention Feb. 16.

Indianapolis attorney Angela Dow Davis, who'd filed to run against the Democrats' slate also chosen Feb. 16, withdrew her name by the deadline. Davis would only say she wasn't slated and decided for personal family reasons not to run.

Each party has eight Superior Court judgeships in the primary, since state law balances the court between the Republicans and Democrats.

Judges Miller and Johnson said they were surprised and disappointed about not being endorsed by their party, but they supported the system and decided it would be best for them personally and the Republican Party not to run.

"In my opinion, the convention produced a number of inequities that ended a 30-year distinguished career," Judge Johnson wrote to Indiana Lawyer, explaining his decision to withdraw. "In light of these events, it is my opinion that a contested primary would not be in the best interest of our party and that we, as Republicans, need to continue to build on the excitement and momentum gained from last November's victories."

The judge spent an "emotional, harrowing, and sleepless" weekend weighing a decision, ultimately deciding that it would be best for his family and political party to not run against the slate, he said, citing his lifelong work of trying to further the goals of his political party.

"If you run against the slate, this all becomes hardball and the gloves really come off," he said. "The personal costs are so much greater."

Judge Johnson has been on the bench since 1979, most recently handling civil cases and multi-district litigation involving mass tort cases on asbestos and silica. Among his accomplishments is Schultz v. Ford Motor, which was the first case in the nation to involve a paperless trial.

Judge Miller, who's been on the bench since 1991, said he also welcomed the additional weekend to make a decision.

"I was not happy about the surprising results on the day of slating, but rather than endure 10 weeks of a bitter and costly campaign, I thought it would be better for everyone this way," he said. "I had support and financial commitments, and so that wouldn't have been an issue. But the whole process would have been unseemly, and that's not what I want."

Judge Miller credited the slated candidates as all being "good, honorable, and qualified" for the job, and said in the end it comes down to them doing a better job at courting precinct committeemen and party leaders.

"Quite clearly, this is something I didn't do as well," he said. "People who might have half the story or ignore it completely have all kinds of reasons that are just silly, from my not wearing a suit to being out of town for a week before the (convention) and missing forums. The fact is, I didn't get slated and now I'm not running. That's it."

The Indianapolis Bar Association's Judicial Excellence Political Action Committee recently released its 2008 Judicial Candidate Qualification survey results. Judge Miller received an approval rating of 85.5 percent and Judge Johnson received an 82.6 percent approval mark. Davis got a 41.2 percent approval rating. The surveys go to members of the IBA and Marion County Bar Association, as well as county prosecutor and public defender offices.

As a result of the judges' decisions to withdraw, all eight slated Republicans will be elected to the bench. Those on the Republican slate are incumbent Judges Cynthia Jane Ayers, Dave Certo, Robyn L. Moberly, Marilyn A. Moores, and Ted Sosin; as well as criminal Commissioner Marc T. Rothenberg, and attorneys Kurt Eisgruber, and Timothy W. Oakes. The Democratic slate lists incumbent Judges Annie Christ-Garcia, David J. Dreyer, Patrick L. McCarty, Tanya Walton Pratt, David Shaheed, and presiding Judge Gerald S. Zore; as well as attorneys Garland E. Graves, and James B. Osborn. On the Democrats' side, Washington Township Small Claims Judge Kimberly J. Brown is the only unslated choice on the ballot.
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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT