As leaders in the Indiana State Bar Association point out, David has taken part in scores of cases during his two years as a justice and has been highly active in community outreach. A survey of attorneys by the association found more than 80 percent supporting his retention, a similar figure to those enjoyed by the others on the ballot, Justice Robert Rucker and four Court of Appeals judges.

In a public letter praising David as a “veritable workhorse” and a “fierce defender of the rule of law,” outgoing Bar Association President C. Erik Chickedantz wrote: “Punishing a judge over a single decision . . . as opposed to looking at the whole picture of a judge’s service lowers the status of the judicial process and can send a chilling message to other justices and judges. Hoosiers deserve better.”

He’s right. Hoosiers deserve the opportunity to hold judges accountable at the polls, but they have the obligation to know the history behind the names and the complexities of provocative decisions. In this instance, a retention vote is interesting for the wrong reasons. David merits a “yes” — as does Justice Rucker.

Indiana is a better place because of Justice Steve David’s service and leadership.

Running alongside his lifelong and remarkable military career, Steve David has served as a lawyer in a wide range of settings that have provided a solid basis for his work as a Justice. There aren’t many people who can match his performance as a corporate lawyer, and as a lawyer who represented injured people, and as a consummate trial court judge whose reputation for even-handedness reached well beyond our state’s borders.

It is good for Indiana that Steve David hears the call of public service, and we should vote to retain him in office with confidence that we’re lucky to have him.

Indiana’s system of merit appointment and retention has saved us from the sort of unseemly judicial political campaigns so visible even in the states around us. And it has promoted able people to the bench. The public’s knowledge of this fact has produced higher voter participation and higher voter approval over time. In this election, Justice Robert Rucker and Court of Appeals Judges Baker, Barnes, Mathias, and Vaidik have likewise earned our vote to retain.

Members of our military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And members of the Indiana National Guard take an additional oath to support and defend the Constitution of Indiana.

While Indiana is the 15th most populous state, the Indiana Army and Air National Guard have deployed nearly 20,000 soldiers and airmen since 1911, making it one of the top contributing states to our nation’s military.

Indiana’s soldiers and airmen have done more than their fair share for the rest of us, and they deserve our support. Unfortunately, the scars of battle don’t heal just because a deployment ends. Difficult issues — such as those tied to family problems, the economy and dealing with the emotional stress of war — can have a profoundly negative impact on a veteran’s behavior. Our veterans can sometimes find themselves in legal trouble, and our system isn’t always equipped to handle the unique issues they face.

However, there are more people working within the justice system thoughtfully and compassionately to help veterans. A few pioneering counties in Indiana have created Veterans Treatment Courts. These counties have forged partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to enhance support for our veterans. Take a look at what they are doing in Porter County.

My talk, titled “One Person Can Make a Difference, and Everyone Must Try,” focused on the obligations and opportunities every single one of us has to prevent and identify child abuse, prosecute child abusers and assist with the healing of abused children and their families.

From my comments:

“Children make up less than 25 percent of the population of Indiana, but 100 percent of our future.

“You are here because you care about our children in crisis, and you care about their future — our future. Everyone of us must be of the opinion that we are a member of the board of directors of the future of Indiana’s children and be prepared to act — and to act decisively — for them.

“We must ensure that the appropriate training, the appropriate emphasis and the necessary funding are given so that all children in crisis can become thriving children.

“Law enforcement’s motto is often “to protect and to serve.” We, who are in the business of helping children in crisis; helping children who have been victimized; helping the children who find themselves without hope and suffering physical, mental and emotional injuries, must rally and move forward around a similar motto: “to protect and to heal.”

“Every child has a right to know and experience faith, hope and love. It is our responsibility as adults to ensure that, for children in crisis, distrust and apathy are replaced by faith, and dreams of the future drown out nightmares of the past. We must replace hopelessness and distrust with hope. Love must conquer anger, fear and humiliation. We cannot fail our children.”

Whew! We made it! My step-daughter, Danielle, and I ran the Rock ‘N’ Roll half marathon in St. Louis, Sun., Oct. 21. This year’s full marathon was bigger than ever: more than 16,000 runners from 49 states and 17 countries participated. The beneficiary of this big fundraiser: Team Activities for Special Kids (TASK), a St. Louis-based nonprofit that aims to provide safe recreational activities for children with special physical and developmental needs.

… Punishing a judge over a single decision lowers the status of the judicial process, and can send a chilling message to other justices and judges. Indiana is better than that, and we think voters are smart enough to render their own correct decision.

I hope you’ll read the full editorial for more and learn more about my years of public service. I would appreciate your vote.

I extend hearty congratulations to the approximately 400 people who were admitted Oct. 15 to the practice of law at the Indiana Convention Center in downtown Indianapolis. My state Supreme Court colleagues and I joined the Court of Appeals and federal judges to preside over the admission of these new attorneys, who represent the promise and future of our profession. They have worked for years on their education, and should be commended for their hard work. Afterwards, many of us headed to a wonderful “Dinner with the Judiciary,” hosted by the Young Lawyers Section of the Indiana State Bar Association.

Every day, I do the best that I can for our state. I am overwhelmed and humbled by the votes of confidence and support I have received.

I first took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States in 1979, when I was commissioned as a 2LT in the United States Army. I have remained prepared to give my life to preserve all of our Constitutional guarantees and liberties.

In January of 1995, I took my first oath as a Judicial Officer to support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Years, thousands of cases and tens of thousands of litigants, witnesses and attorneys later, I am as committed to you and to this state and this great country as I have ever been. I serve you.

I ask for your support on Election Day by voting YES to retain me, and by voting YES to retain all of the Judges and Justices seeking retention.

Thank you for your support.

Today, the organization released the results of a poll of ISBA members concerning the retention of two Supreme Court Justices, including me, and four Court of Appeals judges.

Here is the bar association’s release of its findings.

When informing bar members of the poll’s findings, C. Erik Chickedantz, the bar’s president, wrote, “Please do your part, as local bar leaders, to encourage the retention of these judges. Our system of justice is too important to be co-opted by special interest groups.”

Here is a companion editorial column written by Bar member Joel Schumm, a law professor at Indiana University.

Getting a large group of lawyers to agree on anything is no small task, so the poll that shows more than 80% of the state lawyers support the retention of the two Indiana Supreme Court justices and four Court of Appeals judges on the ballot in November is truly remarkable.

This overwhelming support for judges is not based on winning or losing cases but rather on the manner in which each judge approaches cases and treats the lawyers and litigants. I’ve had the privilege of arguing cases before all six of the judges and have lost more often than I’ve won. Nonetheless, I strongly support their retention because each has a respectful demeanor and proven record of impartiality, thoughtfulness, and hard work. Win or lose, litigants and lawyers know their cases were carefully and fairly considered before Justices David and Rucker and Judges Baker, Barnes, Mathias, and Vaidik.

Because judges make hundreds of decisions each year on a variety of difficult and controversial issues, sometimes a decision may cause a stir. Like some others, I took issue with parts of the Barnes decision written more than a year ago by Justice David. I raised those concerns in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of a group of legislators. In response to that and other briefs, the Court issued an opinion that clarified the ruling, which helped pave the way for the General Assembly to make modest changes to Indiana’s self-defense statute after a great deal of discussion and debate. Whatever one’s opinion of the Barnes’ decision, that series of events demonstrates how each branch of government can appropriately exercise its role in resolving important issues.

Basing a retention vote on the Barnes decision—or any other single case—fails to consider the impressive and impactful work Justice David has done since joining the Court more than two years ago. Justice David has written or participated in more than a hundred Supreme Court oral arguments and opinions as well as deciding which of more than 1,000 Court of Appeals’ decisions the Supreme Court should review. He has taken an active role in helping to ensure that our system of justice is truly just through committees like the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which works to minimize the detentions of juveniles that result in negative consequences both for public safety and youth development. He has served as an ambassador of the Court by speaking with students, community groups, and lawyers on literally hundreds of occasions.

Unlike the barrage of thirty second ads for political offices, little is written or broadcast about the judicial retention candidates. And in a “yes” or “no” contest, unfortunately a few vocal “no” advocates may dominate a discussion. When deciding whether to support a judge’s retention, taking a few minutes to review the retention website (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2924.htm) or talking with a lawyer familiar with the judges’ work can yield invaluable information. This information, not a decision in a single case, led the vast majority of the state bar members to support the retention of all six of the judges on the ballot.