ILNews

In-box: Marion County slating system works well

December 8, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

Dear editor:

I write to challenge the Indiana Lawyer’s disparagement of the Marion County unique hybrid method of trial judge selection. The Superior Court reorganization, finally passed in 1976, was the result of a three-year effort by a diverse group of lawyers.

The group wanted to stop the wipeout of trial judges in winner take all general elections, but did not want to isolate trial judges from the public they serve. Both political parties accepted the concept of a split Republican/Democrat trial bench, and the reorganization statute was crafted to be able to pass the legislature and operate in multi-court urban area for both civil and criminal trial courts.

The statute has been amended and courts have been added to keep up with the increasing workload. Practicing lawyers or judges always pushed for the changes. Who can know better how to run the Marion County trial courts than those who work there?

The present system has served the public and worked well for 35 years. It has brought stability to the trial courts. It has attracted good trial judges. It has made individual judges cooperate in General Term.

Don’t be so quick to criticize thirty-five years of success!

Douglass R. Shortridge

President 1974, Indianapolis Bar Association

Carmel

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT