Judicial slating near death?

November 7, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With legal challenges and a new push from the Indianapolis Bar Association pending, is this a signal that the way judges in Marion County have been chosen since the 1970s is about to end?

In August, the Indianapolis Bar Association announced it will push to reform the judicial election and selection process in Marion County. Marion Superior judges are selected in a unique way – so unique that it’s believed to be the only process like it in the country.

Trying to explain the process to people not from Marion County can lead to puzzled looks. Through a slating process, the Republican and Democratic parties choose an equal amount of candidates from the respective parties to put on the primary ballot. Those who aren’t slated by a party can run against the slate, but they don’t have the weight of a political party backing them.

The way the system is set up, though, leads to the judges essentially winning once they make it through the primary election, because there are exactly the same number of judicial positions as candidates running from the two parties. You can pick up to 20 judges, according to the instructions on the ballot, and the ballot conveniently lists 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The only way one would lose in the general election is if the candidate didn’t get a single vote.

In an unsurprising result, all the candidates were re-elected Nov. 7.

A lawsuit filed Nov. 1 by the ACLU of Indiana on behalf of Common Cause argues this setup doesn’t allow Marion County residents to “cast a meaningful vote” because the general election becomes a “mere formality.” The lawsuit seeks an injunction against enforcement of the law that spells out of how Marion Superior judges are elected.

The debate on slating has been going on for years. The process took hold in Marion County following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. I’ve never understood how people can say the process is the right one for Marion County because the election is pretty much won during the primaries. Some people choose not to vote in the primaries because they don’t want to declare a political party in order to do so.

Those who run against the slate are at an obvious disadvantage since they don’t have the money or backing of their party. Five political candidates – including three from Marion Superior Court – filed a lawsuit in April claiming they were illegally denied access to public information in the Marion County Board of Voter Registration’s database.

There have been other lawsuits and inquiries into the slating process recently.

Does all this attention on the Marion County election process mean there is enough support to encourage legislators to change how judges take the bench in the county? What are the arguments for the current system and why should it be changed?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT