ILNews

ISBA poll on judicial retention to be e-mailed

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A third of the Indiana Court of Appeals judges face retention this year, but before voters mark their ballots attorneys have a chance to say what they think about the five appellate judges who want to remain on the bench.

The Indiana State Bar Association’s Improvements in the Judicial System Committee is e-mailing its poll to its members. The first poll will go out Friday, with a second being released Sept. 24 and the third being sent Oct. 1.

This is a confidential “yes” or “no” survey of the attorneys throughout Indiana, and the ISBA said results will be released publicly in early October.

This is the second time attorneys will receive the poll by e-mail rather than traditional paper ballots; the first time was in 2008, when three Indiana Supreme Court justices, one Court of Appeals judge, and the Tax Court judge were up for retention. About 8,000 members were polled two years ago, and nearly 1,500 cast ballots, translating to an 18.5 percent response rate, which overwhelmingly supported the jurists.

“Lawyers are uniquely qualified to evaluate members of the judiciary because we work with the judges and follow their actions and decisions all the time,” said Roderick Morgan, ISBA president and a partner at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis. “The anonymous comment section on the ballot provides an opportunity to offer comments and constructive criticism to a judge subject to the retention vote. Those specific comments can help a judge understand exactly what lawyers feel about the judge’s performance.”

Those facing retention this year are:

- Judge L. Mark Bailey: a former Decatur County judge who was appointed to the appellate bench in 1998 and retained in 2000. He represents the First District, which includes southern Indiana.

- Judge Elaine B. Brown: served on the Dubois Superior Court for a total 15 years before Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed her to the appellate bench in May 2008. This is her first retention vote after being initially named to the court, and she represents the Fifth District that includes the entire state.

- Judge Cale J. Bradford: served for more than 10 years as a Marion Superior judge before the governor elevated him to the appellate bench Aug. 1, 2007. He represents the Second District, which includes the central part of the state.

- Judge Melissa S. May: a former 14-year insurance defense and personal injury attorney in Evansville who was appointed to the Court of Appeals in April 1998 and then retained in 2000. She represents the Fourth District that includes the entire state.

- Judge Margret G. Robb: who was appointed to the appeals court in July 1998 by then-Gov. Frank O’Bannon, after 20 years of general practice in Lafayette and service as a bankruptcy trustee for the Northern District of Indiana, as well as service as a mediator and deputy public defender. She serves for the Fifth District that includes the entire state.

Full biographical information about each judge, as well as links to their appellate decisions and general retention election information, is available on the state judiciary’s website at www.courts.IN.gov/retention. The new site went online in June and mirrors the one created in 2008 after Senate President Pro Temp David Long urged the judiciary to provide more information about the retention process to voters.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT