ILNews

IBA: Website to Provide Info About Appellate Judges on Retention Ballot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s Appellate Courts are once again providing voters with a simple avenue for learning about judges who are on the November retention ballot. A website has been created to help voters make informed decisions. The site is designed to give voters access to biographical information about the judges and details about the decisions they have made while serving on the bench. The website can be found at courts.IN.gov/retention.

In November, the following Court of Appeals Judges will appear on the retention ballot: L. Mark Bailey of the First District which includes southern Indiana, Elaine B. Brown of the Fifth District which includes the entire state, Cale J. Bradford of the Second District which includes central Indiana, Melissa S. May of the Fourth District which includes the entire state and Margret G. Robb of the Fifth District which includes the entire state.

The website is designed to be user-friendly with a number of ways for voters to learn about judges. Visitors to the site can watch appellate cases unfold first-hand. Oral argument video is webcast live and later archived. The retention website allows voters to watch those arguments. Voters can also search a database of judicial opinions. Opinions are the written decisions of a case and are available for citizens to read.

In 2008 the Appellate Courts developed a similar website after Senate President Pro Tempore David Long urged the judiciary to provide more information about the retention election to voters. Court of Appeals Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford (who were not on the 2008 ballot) coordinated the website creation. The Indiana Division of State Court Administration provided technical support.

Indiana selects appellate judges based on merit. The Judicial Nominating Commission interviews judicial applicants and provides the Governor with a list of three candidates. The Governor makes the final selection. Once appointed, after serving two years, a judge must stand for retention in the first general election. The voter is presented with the question “Should Justice (or Judge) Jane B. Jones be retained in office?” If the judge receives a majority of “yes” votes, the judge is retained. The judge is then on the retention ballot every 10 years.• 

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT