Today’s second AFW Sunday Series features three interviews with the candidates in the non-partisan race for the Allen Superior Court Civil Division Judge race.
Judge Stanley Levine
First up is incumbent, Judge Stanley Levine. Judge Levine was appointed by Governor Frank O’Bannon in 1998 and has been re-elected twice.
Topics covered during his interview include: Introduction, why Judge Levine is seeking re-election, issues facing the Allen Superior Court Civil Division, his opponents, proposals to, “Establish a Domestic Violence Problem Solving Court within the Allen Superior Court”, to establish an evening court and to “Modify existing workloads of unassigned cases by filling in where needed to help expedite the Court’s calendar”, whether civil judges can act as criminal judges, the difference between a magistrate and judge, and conclusion.
Challenger Daniel Borgmann
Next up is challenger Daniel Borgmann. Borgmann is currently a Managing Partner in the law firm of Helmke Beams, L.L.P. He began practicing the law in 1976.
Topics covered in his interview: Introduction, why Daniel is running, what he would be doing as Civil Court Judge if elected, making the transition from lawyer to Civil Court Judge, his proposed “Domestic Violence Problem Solving Court”, his proposed “evening court”, his proposal to help, “expedite the court calendar”, the difference between a magistrate and judge, why he continues to practice the law, and conclusion.
Challenger Jim Posey
Finally is challenger Jim Posey. Posey is a partner in the Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, LLP., law firm. He received his J.D. in 1981 and first served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in 1981 and 1982.
Topics covered in his interview: Introduction, why he is running, what a Civil Division Judge does, the transition from lawyer to judge, improvements/and or changes he’d like to make if elected, the difference between a magistrate and judge, how his campaign has reached out to voters, why he continues to practice the law, one of his opponent’s proposal of an “evening court”, and conclusion.