ILNews

Hebenstreit: Judicial Elections Just Around the Corner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitI know, the elections are over and everyone wants to get back to normal life again … but the process is beginning again.

One of the bedrocks of a solid democracy is the ability of citizens to air their differences before a fair and impartial judiciary. In Marion County, we have been blessed with a solid group of judges which we certainly hope will continue. The judges in Marion County are elected in the General Elections to serve a term of 6 years. There are 2 groups of judges who are elected in differing years. The next group will be up for election next November when we all go to the polls to vote for President and Governor, but the real decisions will be made long before that. In fact, the judicial candidates have been making the political rounds for some time already.

Under the current system, there will likely be 10 judicial candidates from each major political party on the November ballot. Typically, all 20 will be elected as it is unusual to see third party candidates run, let alone win. Thus, the true contest occurs at the slating conventions and in the Primary election. Each party holds a slating convention in February and recommends the 10 candidates that party hopes will be on the November ballot. Other candidates may participate in the Primary election in May 2012, and the 10 who have the highest number of votes of each party will be on the ballot for the General election.

The debate continues about whether it is better to have the general electorate choose judges or have some other process. In smaller counties, it is not uncommon for the citizens to actually know the judicial candidates and be able to express their personal opinion at the polls. That is dramatically different in Marion County. By and large, most voters have no idea about the qualifications of the judicial candidates and many lawyers who are not litigators probably do not know either. That is the reason for JEPAC.

Who better to determine the qualifications of the judiciary than the attorneys who practice in front of those judges on a daily basis? The stated purpose for JEPAC is “to conduct and publicize non-partisan evaluations of Marion County judicial candidates to promote the fair and effective selection of qualified judicial candidates in Marion County.” Over the years, the process has undergone many changes.

In the past, the members of JEPAC have individually interviewed the candidates and made recommendations. In the most recent judicial elections, with the assistance of a Wabash College professor, the Board of JEPAC created a written survey. That survey is then submitted to all attorneys who have entered an appearance in the Marion County Clerk’s office within the last three years for response. It reaches in excess of 8,000 attorneys, and requests that the responding attorneys only evaluate the candidates with whom they have had personal contact or knowledge. The survey is quite comprehensive and covers a number of criteria for evaluating the competence, demeanor and professionalism of the candidates. After tabulation, the results are published to assist the general public make an informed decision when at the polls.

This year, the work of JEPAC will be accelerated. Since the selection of candidates takes place at the respective party’s slating conventions (usually held in February), the results will be ready prior to those conventions. According to the Resolution creating JEPAC, members of the PAC are selected by the President of the IndyBar. Since a good bit of the work of the PAC will be accomplished during Scott Chinn’s term of office, he and I each had input in the selection of the members. Past President of the IndyBar, Joe Russell, and Past President of the IBF, Lante Earnest, have agreed to co-lead the PAC as the Chair and Treasurer respectively. There is an even presence of Republican, Democrat and Independent representation on the Board. Under their leadership, the 2011-2012 evaluations will be determined and published.

As with any human endeavor, there is room for conflict and disagreement. Nevertheless, JEPAC has proven to be an effective method of evaluating the judicial candidates who will be elected by the citizens of Marion County. If you receive one of the evaluations, please take the time to respond in a fair and thoughtful manner. Our clients and the citizens of Marion County deserve to continue to have a competent and professional judiciary to resolve their disputes.•

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT