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. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  2. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

  3. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  4. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  5. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

ADVERTISEMENT