ILNews

Judicial nominating commission vote extended to Dec. 3

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because an untold number of attorneys eligible to vote for a lawyer member of the Judicial Nominating Commission didn’t receive ballots in the mail, the voting deadline has been extended.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted an order dated Nov. 12 that extended the balloting deadline from 4 p.m. Nov. 19 to 4 p.m. Dec. 3. More than 7,400 attorneys in Court of Appeals District 2 are eligible to vote for Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll or Cline Farrell Christie & Lee partner Lee Christie, but after ballots were mailed late last month, it became apparent many lawyers didn’t receive them.

The order signed by Chief Justice Brent Dickson sheds little light on what happened or why. “During the week of Nov. 4, 2013, it came to the Clerk and the Court’s attention that while most eligible electors had received their ballots and accompanying materials through the mail, many had not,” the order says. “After further investigation, the Clerk determined that an unidentified issue with the delivery of the mail had caused an unknown number of ballots and accompanying materials not to be delivered to eligible voters.”

Carroll and Christie are vying to succeed Indianapolis attorney William Winingham, of Wilson Kehoe Winingham, whose three-year term on the commission expires Dec. 31. Attorney members may not be elected to consecutive terms.

Members elected or appointed to the board from this point forward will influence the future makeup of Indiana Supreme Court. Members serve three-year terms, and Dickson will turn 75 and face mandatory retirement in 2016.

The commission’s three attorney members are elected by lawyers in each of the three geographical COA districts, and three governor-appointed non-lawyer members also are selected from each of those districts. Dickson chairs the panel, which interviews and recommends finalists for vacancies on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court, from which the governor chooses appointees.

The commission members also serve as the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which investigates complaints against judges.

Eligible voters are attorneys in good standing in the following counties: Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White.

Look for more coverage of the Judicial Nominating Commission election in the Nov. 20 issue of Indiana Lawyer.

 



 
 

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT