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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT