Vote question advice: "Shall XX be retained in office?"

[henktermaat]

Anyone know anything about these Judges? (Hamilton County)

Shall judge Cale Bradford be retained in office?
Pertains to Hamilton and Marion counties.
→ No, Yes
Shall judge Melissa S. May be retained in office?
→ No, Yes
Shall judge Elaine B. Brown be retained in office?
→ No, Yes
Shall judge Margret G. Robb be retained in office?
→ No, Yes

 

[jbombelli]

No.


I like new people.


Just kidding. To a point. I never seem to know enough about those races.

 

[henktermaat]

No.


I like new people.


Just kidding. To a point. I never seem to know enough about those races.

Me too. By default, vote out incumbents... but it's questions like those I really don't know/care enough about.

 

[DRob]

Incumbents

We are in a "vote out the incumbents" time but that's not always the answer. It also probably doesn't apply to the judges. Most of them I don't know so it's a crapshoot but they aren't going to impact any future legislation.

Whatever you do, VOTE!

 

[indykid]

Makes me feel like I am not doing my job by knowing the actions of those judges, but regardless as to whether they are good or not, it is a bad time for incumbents of any type.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In 2005, Judge Bradford ruled that a pair of divorcing parents could not teach their young child about their shared non-mainstream religion. I cannot support that and as such, I will never vote to retain a judge who would make a ruling of that nature.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Duncan]

In 2005, Judge Bradford ruled that a pair of divorcing parents could not teach their young child about their shared non-mainstream religion. I cannot support that and as such, I will never vote to retain a judge who would make a ruling of that nature.

Blessings,
Bill

THANK YOU
that helps
Duncan

 

[Mike H]

I voted NO on those questions.
Just seemed like the right thing to do.

 

[eatsnopaste]

At least you live in a Democracy where you can vote out your judges...ours are appointed and I got NO say in who got selected or how long they serve.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At least you live in a Democracy where you can vote out your judges...ours are appointed and I got NO say in who got selected or how long they serve.

Actually, this is a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy), and if your listed location is correct, you have your chance to have your say when you vote if the judges in question cover your district. The judges are appointed, yes, but retention is up to the voters, and IIRC, the length of term is in the state Constitution, Article VII, Sec. 10-11:

Section 10. Selection of Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals. A vacancy in a judicial office in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals shall be filled by the Governor, without regard to political affiliation, from a list of three nominees presented to him by the judicial nominating commission. If the Governor shall fail to make an appointment from the list within sixty days from the day it is presented to him, the appointment shall be made by the Chief Justice or the acting Chief Justice from the same list.
To be eligible for nomination as a justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the Court of Appeals, a person must be domiciled within the geographic district, a citizen of the United States, admitted to the practice of law in the courts of the State for a period of not less than ten (10) years or must have served as a judge of a circuit, superior or criminal court of the State of Indiana for a period of not less than five (5) years.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1970).

Section 11. Tenure of Justices of Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals. A justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the Court of Appeals shall serve until the next general election following the expiration of two years from the date of appointment, and subject to approval or rejection by the electorate, shall continue to serve for terms of ten years, so long as he retains his office. In the case of a justice of the Supreme Court, the electorate of the entire state shall vote on the question of approval or rejection. In the case of judges of the Court of Appeals the electorate of the geographic district in which he serves shall vote on the question of approval or rejection.
Every such justice and judge shall retire at the age specified by statute in effect at the commencement of his current term.
Every such justice or judge is disqualified from acting as a judicial officer, without loss of salary, while there is pending (1) an indictment or information charging him in any court in the United States with a crime punishable as a felony under the laws of Indiana or the United States, or (2) a recommendation to the Supreme Court by the commission on judicial qualifications for his removal or retirement.
On recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications or on its own motion, the Supreme Court may suspend such justice or judge from office without salary when in any court in the United States he pleads guilty or no contest or is found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony under the laws of Indiana or the United States, or of any other crime that involves moral turpitude under that law. If his conviction is reversed, suspension terminates and he shall be paid his salary for the period of suspension. If he is suspended and his conviction becomes final the Supreme Court shall remove him from office.
On recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications the Supreme Court may (1) retire such justice or judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties and is or is likely to become permanent, and (2) censure or remove such justice or judge, for action occurring not more than six years prior to the commencement of his current term, when such action constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.
A justice or judge so retired by the Supreme Court shall be considered to have retired voluntarily. A justice or judge so removed by the Supreme Court is ineligible for judicial office and pending further order of the Court he is suspended from practicing law in this State.
Upon receipt by the Supreme Court of any such recommendation, the Court shall hold a hearing, at which such justice or judge is entitled to be present, and make such determinations as shall be required. No justice shall participate in the determination of such hearing when it concerns himself.
The Supreme Court shall make rules implementing this section and provide for convening of hearings. Hearings and proceedings shall be public upon request of the justice or judge whom it concerns.
No such justice or judge shall, during his term of office, engage in the practice of law, run for elective office other than a judicial office, directly or indirectly make any contribution to, or hold any office in, a political party or organization or take part in any political campaign.
(History: As Amended November 4, 1952; November 3, 1970).

(emphasis added)

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jack Ryan]

No.


I like new people.


Just kidding. To a point. I never seem to know enough about those races.

If they haven't been doing enough GOOD for me to at least have heard of them then my answer is always "NO".

No one ever ASKS for elected jobs with the campaign promise, "I'll sit there like a bump on the log doing as little as possible so no one will get mad at me." So I don't vote to re-elect the ones with that as their biggest accomplishment.

 

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

If they haven't been doing enough GOOD for me to at least have heard of them then my answer is always "NO".

No one ever ASKS for elected jobs with the campaign promise, "I'll sit there like a bump on the log doing as little as possible so no one will get mad at me." So I don't vote to re-elect the ones with that as their biggest accomplishment.

Same here. No across the board.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I always vote no to retain a judge. No sense in letting people be comfortable with their authority.

 

[MinuteMan47]

What about the property tax question on the ballot? Any input on that one?

 

[henktermaat]

What about the property tax question on the ballot? Any input on that one?

Good question. I think a limit on tax (1% for most people's homes) is a reasonable thing to have... I was planning on voting yes

 

[eatsnopaste]

Bill you are right..as usual. Want to look up how many have NOT been retained?

 

[printcraft]

term limits across the board.

 

[eldirector]

What about the property tax question on the ballot? Any input on that one?

I ended up voting "yes". It is better then leaving the current system, but not as good as repealing taxes on property owners. Baby steps, I guess.

Just remember to vote "no" on any future special taxing referendums, or you'll end up back where we are today: funding every little project on the backs of property owners.

 

[henktermaat]

I ended up voting "yes". It is better then leaving the current system, but not as good as repealing taxes on property owners. Baby steps, I guess.

Just remember to vote "no" on any future special taxing referendums, or you'll end up back where we are today: funding every little project on the backs of property owners.

Yep- always vote NO on the damn referendums

 

[DragonGunner]

The property tax took me off gaurd....I know in my county, my property tax is almost nothing....I voted No because why mess up a good thing, an figured if they wanted to change something it couldn't be for the good???