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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT