What’s the word, Gov?

May 13, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Update:

The Governor vetoed the act this afternoon. Word came down around 4:45 p.m. Here’s a link to his reasons for vetoing the act.

We’re glad Gov. Daniels decided to veto this bill, and his reasoning for doing so is rational and the best for judicial selection in St. Joseph County.

Earlier:

Today’s the deadline for Gov. Mitch Daniels to sign or veto House Enrolled Act 1491. By now, I’m sure you are familiar with this bill – switching St. Joseph Superior judges from merit-selection to a nonpartisan election – and why we hope the governor vetoes the bill.

But at this point, all we can do is wait.

We don’t think the governor will simply take no action and allow the act to become law without his signature. Being an attorney and the one who ultimately chooses the St. Joseph Superior judges, the governor may have a little more reason either to sign or veto the bill.

As of this post, we haven’t heard what he’s going to do. What do think will happen today – will he sign it, veto it, or just let it become a law?
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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT