ILNews

IL Editorial: The cynic asks: yVote! or why vote?

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
August 31, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Marion County Clerk Beth White has started her yVote! program, which we believe to be a wonderful undertaking. She travels to any Marion County high school that will have her in to teach civics. She talks to students about where they vote depending on where they live, the different ways to vote, and who is on the ballot. Students also get a chance to try out casting a ballot on the county’s voting equipment. During one particular session, White asked students to choose among the following mock candidates for president: Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Jesse “The Body” Ventura. White also registers to vote any interested students who will be age 18 on or before the general election, which this year is Nov. 8.

She’s taken her traveling civics class to 22 public, private, and charter high schools, and registered more than 1,650 students to vote since she started the program in 2008.

Some of us on the newspaper staff who live in Marion County have had students who have gotten to participate in White’s yVote! program. One student thought it was “kinda cool” to register to vote during a program at school and “got a kick out of it” when White asked students to vote for their favorite political family, choosing among the Kennedys, Clintons, and the Bushes.EditorialFactbox.gif

This particular student didn’t recall White describing the process by which judges are chosen in Marion County. This student listened to the short version of the process: the fundraising for the slating fee, the two major political parties placing the candidates on the ballot, and the fact that unless a rogue candidate decides to run against the slate there will be, for example, eight judicial openings and eight judicial candidates on the ballot. The student’s response to this? “That’s kinda messed up.”

We had the same reaction to a fundraising flyer that circulated toward the middle of this month for Marion Superior Judge Becky Pierson-Treacy. After severe criticism of the wording along side the suggested donations for her honor’s slating fee, the event was canceled. The wording in question?

$150 “Sustained”

$250 “Affirmed”

$500 “So Ordered”

$1,000 “Favorable Ruling”

The judge has declared that the word choice in no way indicates that her rulings can be purchased, which we believe to be true. But it still points out the terrible idea it is to have people who are charged with deciding the fate of those who appear before them to be out raising money to remain in office.

In short, the most adept fundraiser may not always be the most adept judge, and to be quite frank, we’d prefer the most adept judge if it’s all the same to the two major political parties. But alas, the parties seem to be mostly concerned with keeping the most adept fundraisers in office.•
 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT