1 million ‘yes’ votes

November 12, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court announced today that more than one million people voted to retain the three justices up for retention this year. That’s the first time that many people have voted “yes” to keep a justice in office.

I wonder how many of the people who voted – either yes or no – knew anything about the judges and justices they were retaining.

This year, the courts’ created a retention Web site with information about the judges and justices for voters, and more than 6,000 people visited the site. (The retention site included a link to our retention site, with links to past stories about retention issues.)

I think it’s great the courts created a Web site to educate voters about the people up for retention, but I have to wonder how many of those 6,000 people that visited the site weren’t attorneys or those already familiar with the court system in our state.

I grew up in a county that didn’t retain its trial judges, so if it wasn’t for my job with Indiana Lawyer, I wouldn’t be familiar with the process to keep appellate judges on the bench. I also wouldn’t have had a clue who any of the appellate judges were. I imagine it’s that way for a lot of people who don’t interact with the courts system, no matter what county they live in.

When the next election rolls around in which judges or justices are up for retention, it would be a good idea for the courts to publicize the site even more, both within the legal community and to the general public. Not everyone visits the state’s Web site frequently, or makes an effort to check out the judicial section of the site, so many people may have missed the resource.

The more people who can learn about the judges up for retention the better because these are the men and women who make important legal decisions that may affect our everyday lives.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • They know NOTHING and it is sad that they even think they have a vote.

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
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT