ILNews

IBA: Indianapolis Lawyers Release Results of Judicial Candidate Peer Evaluation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In order to assist voters in electing qualified and effective judges in the November 8 election, the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Judicial Excellence Political Action Committee has released the results of its 2012 judicial candidate peer evaluation. The Democratic and Republican Party ballots will each feature twelve candidates vying for ten Marion Superior Court judgeship opportunities on the November ballot.

“This evaluation by the candidates’ professional peers confirms for the public that we have a variety of qualified candidates from which to choose. We hope voters take into consideration the thoughts of those interacting professionally with the candidates and elect the qualified judiciary Marion County needs and deserves,” said C. Joseph Russell, chair of JEPAC.

The survey was sent to members of the Indianapolis Bar Association, attorneys in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and the Marion County Public Defender’s Office, as well as any other attorney who had entered an appearance in Marion County courts in the last three years. The respondents were asked to verify that they had had professional contact with the candidates they evaluated and if they had, the evaluating lawyers were to rate their experience with the candidate(s) regarding each candidate’s; (1) demonstration of sufficient legal experience to be an effective judge; (2) efficiency as an office administrator; (3) conduct appropriate for a judge; (4) knowledge of rules of evidence, procedure and substantive law; and (5) ability to be unbiased, independent and impartial. Complete details are posted at www.indyjudges.org.

The sole purpose of 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. The JEPAC is a bipartisan group assisted by bipartisan counsel.•

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT