ILNews

Common Cause, ACLU sue over Marion County judge slating

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The way Marion Superior judges are elected is unconstitutional, a suit filed Thursday by Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana alleges.

“The failure of Indiana law to permit registered voters in Marion County to cast a meaningful vote for all seats on the Marion Superior Court violates the First Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Common Cause v. Indiana Secretary of State, 1:12-CV-1603.

Common Cause, a nationwide nonpartisan group whose mission is to promote open, honest government and voting rights, seeks an injunction against enforcement of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13. The suit says that law, which sets forth the process for electing judges in the Marion Superior Courts, is “unique in Indiana, and perhaps in the nation.”

State law permits each of the major political parties to conduct primary elections to fill exactly half of the judicial seats, “which renders the general election a mere formality,” according to a statement from ACLU of Indiana.

“Voters in Marion County who do not cast a ballot in the primary election, therefore, have absolutely no say in electing judges to the Marion Superior Court. This process means that even people who do vote in the primary election have a say in only half of the judgeships to be filled,” the statement says.

The process of “slating” of Marion County Superior judge races has drawn criticism, since each candidate who earned the party’s endorsement on the primary ballot contributed identical amounts to the local party before each party’s slating convention that preceded the primary. For Democrats, the contribution was $13,100; for Republicans, it was $12,000, according to a review of campaign contributions earlier this year by Indiana Lawyer.

Julia Vaughn, policy director for Common Cause Indiana, said, “For too long the party bosses have controlled the judicial selection process in Marion County and denied voters any meaningful role in it. Marion County voters deserve the same opportunities as voters in other counties to elect judges of their choice. The judicial branch, as arbiters of the law, must be above reproach.”

ACLU of Indiana Executive Director Jane Henegar said, “We are especially mindful this close to the General Election that the right to vote is precious. Our democracy is premised on the right of each citizen to have a meaningful vote. Americans should never be forced to muffle their voices in our government for anyone’s convenience, least of all for political parties.”

The Indianapolis Bar Association earlier this year also resolved to push anew for reform of the Marion County judicial election and selection process.

Indiana Attorney General’s office spokesman Bryan Corbin said Thursday that the office had not been served, but that it would defend the suit.

“Whenever a private plaintiff attempts to sue the Secretary of State’s office in its official capacity, the attorney general represents that office in court. Our legal representation of our state government clients is required by statute,” Corbin said in a statement.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Present System Doesn't Work
    I disagree. The public generally doesn't know anything about ANY candidates until an actual race begins. Same would hold for judicial candidates. At least give the public a chance to know the candidates.
  • Present system works
    The present system has served the public well. The public doesn't know who the judicial candidates are. The parties do.

    Post a comment to this story

    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 Indiana Lawyer 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

    2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

    3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

    4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

    5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

    ADVERTISEMENT