Election battles brewing in GOP-heavy Hamilton County

February 10, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fishers’ first city election is generating most of the buzz in the circles I navigate north of 96th Street, but voters throughout Hamilton County have decisions to make at the polls this year.

Other races on the 2014 ballot run the gamut from township board to U.S. Congress. (Pop quiz: Name a single member or your township board.) Precinct committee positions and convention delegate posts also are up for grabs.

For an early look at the whole lineup, check out the 15-page list of candidates the Hamilton County elections office posted online after the Feb. 7 filing deadline.

As you might expect in such an overwhelmingly Republican county, the May primary is shaping up to be hotly contested. But a fair number of Democrats also have entered the fray—three filed to run for the House seat now held by U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, for example. And Brooks has a primary opponent, too.

Other note-worthy candidates and races:

— State Rep. Eric Turner of Cicero will face challenger Parvin Gillim in the GOP primary; the winner takes on Democrat Bob Ashley in November.

— State Rep. Jerry Torr of Carmel faces Republican challenger Don Meier in May; Democrat David Russ will take on the winner in the general election.

— State Sen. James Merritt Jr. of Indianapolis is facing primary opposition from Republican Crystal LeMotte. (Merritt’s District 31 includes portions of both Marion and Hamilton counties.)

— GOP hopefuls Andrew J. Dollard and Fred Glynn are running for the County Council District 1 seat being vacated by incumbent Meredith Carter, who is seeking a position on the Clay Township Board.

— Carmel City Judge Brian Poindexter is running for a seat on the bench Hamilton Superior Court 3, where Judge William J. Hughes has presided for about 25 years.

What races are you paying attention to this year?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Brian Poindexter
    Judge Brian Poindexter (JBP) runs the worst “kangaroo” court in the State of Indiana. On 12/7/09, JBP allowed a police officer to show up three hours late to court, a prosecutor to “lead” the officer through a series of obviously “yes” answers, allowed officer to perjure himself repeatedly under oath and did not allow me to cross examine the officer. As a lawyer, I knew this JBP’s traffic court was a “traffic ticket money pit” for the county when the prosecutor offered everyone in the court a deal before JBP walked in … “pay your traffic ticket and you can leave or go before JBP and you will have to pay more”. Don’t care whether it’s a Republican, Democrat or Captain Kangaroo, I will vote for anybody that will run against JBP – Jim Weaver

Post a comment to this blog

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 IBJ 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
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT