The Indiana Election Commission has pulled one Lake County judicial candidate off the ballot because of how the political
process put him into the race, while a controversial incumbent Allen Superior judge remains on the ballot despite arguments
that his disciplinary history should keep him off.
At a four-hour meeting Thursday afternoon in Indianapolis, the four-member election commission took sweeping action that
influences the upcoming Nov. 2 general election. One decision translates into a determination that incumbent judges aren’t
held to the same standards as attorneys who might run for the bench, while the other paves the way for a likely court case
on who can be in the race to replace the longtime Lake Circuit judge.
The two agenda items included judicial candidacy questions involving Allen Superior Judge Ken Scheibenberger and Lake Circuit
judicial prospect William I. Fine.
A group of 12 residents argued Judge Scheibenberger should be removed from the ballot because he’s been disciplined
by the Indiana Supreme Court, via the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and that makes him ineligible for the ballot. The
Supreme Court last year suspended the longtime judge for three days without pay because of his conduct in late 2007, when
he went into another judge’s courtroom wearing his robe for a sentencing hearing and verbally accosted the family of
a defendant he suspected had been connected to his son’s drug-related death a year before. The justices determined his
behavior was that of a grieving parent.
Opponents wanting the judge removed from the ballot used that history and IC 33-33-2-10(3), which states that judicial candidates
may not have had “any disciplinary sanction imposed …by the supreme court disciplinary commission of Indiana
or any similar body in another state.” They argued it applies to judges, while Judge Scheibenberger and his legal team
contended that it’s a term of art not applicable to incumbent judges.
Jeff Arnold, a lawyer speaking on behalf of the challengers, said the statute used the disciplinary commission as a general
term since it wasn’t capitalized and should also be read to encompass the judicial qualifications commission. He noted
that if the commission reads that law closely, it technically does nothing at all because only the Supreme Court can sanction
attorneys and judges.
But the judge’s attorney Robert Thompson said that phrase was a term of art and that the General Assembly knew exactly
what it was doing to specifically craft a statute that draws a distinction between disciplined attorneys and judges. He said
that wording was crafted because the Indiana Constitution specifically outlined the powers of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission, and this statute wasn’t meant to usurp that higher authority.
“If they meant to include sitting judges, they would have included a sanction initiated by the Judicial Qualifications
Commission,” he said. “You can’t construe it any way you want to. That’s not a good legal argument.”
Election commission member Anthony Long said the drafting error might mean the statute is ineffective but that “it
wouldn’t be the first time,” and he doesn’t want to broaden the interpretation of a statute as it’s
written. Other members echoed his concerns, and they encouraged residents to ask their legislators to clarify the statute
if they have a concern.
With that unanimous 4-0 vote and dismissal, Judge Scheibenberger stays on the ballot to run for the seat he’s held
since 1992. Fort Wayne attorneys Wendy Davis and Lewis Griffin are running against him for the judgeship.
But commissioners weren’t as agreeable in the other judicial candidacy case involving Highland attorney Fine, who is
the Republican candidate for the Lake Circuit opening once Judge Lorenzo Arredondo leaves the bench later this year. Merrillville
Town Judge George Paras won the Democratic primary in May and no Republican was on the primary ballot, so party chair Kim
Krull named Fine to fill that ballot vacancy to run against Judge Paras. But some questioned his candidacy based on whether
the party chair has the ability to name a candidate herself rather than the party doing so at a caucus.
Fine’s counsel wanted the commission to deny the challenge outright because they didn't believe the state board
had jurisdiction to decide the matter, while the other side questioned the Republican Party rules and state statute allowing
that practice. Fine’s attorney argued that a caucus in the Lake County matter wouldn't have been required because
the Circuit Court covers only one county, and the caucus rule only extends to circuits covering more than one county.
Commission chair Dan Dumezich, a Chicago attorney and former Indiana lawmaker, said he disagreed with keeping Fine off the
ballot because he believes Krull had the authority to put him there.
"Now he has to go to court," Dumezich said.














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.