« Environment - "Gov. Edgar Whitcomb to sell 144-acre property to state" | Main | Courts - "Second Circuit’s DOMA Decision: A Road Map for SCOTUS?" »

Friday, October 19, 2012

Ind. Courts - More on: New Justice Steven David retention website

Charles Wilson of the AP has a long story this evening following up on Justice David's new website, first mentioned in this ILB post earlier today. Some quotes:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indiana Supreme Court justice facing opposition over a ruling that provoked a public uproar has set up a campaign website to fight for his seat on the state's highest court.

Justice Steven David said Friday he decided to actively campaign because judges "have to be able to make decisions independent of political fallout" as a third, equal branch of government. * * *

Charles Geyh, professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, said he did not know of any other Indiana justice who had campaigned to "fend off opposition."

Justices in other states have faced similar challenges and even lost their seats over unpopular rulings. Three Iowa justices lost retention votes in 2010 after a ruling that legalized gay marriage, and another justice is being challenged this year. Three Florida Supreme Court justices are being targeted by Republicans and other conservatives who accuse them of "judicial activism," including a ruling in 2003 that ordered a new trial for a convicted killer who had been sentenced to death. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside the ruling.

David, who was appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2010, said he obtained permission from the state's judicial ethics panel before launching the campaign website earlier this month. An online registry shows the website was privately registered Oct. 4 by Arizona-based Domains By Proxy, LLC.

The ILB has received this email from a reader:
It seems like the judicial canon only allows him to create a campaign committee. Then I assume that committee could create a website. It is clear from the content, though, that it is his website and he is encouraging a retention vote.
The reference is to CANON 4, and particularly CANON 4.4, quoted in this post earlier today.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 19, 2012 07:09 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts