ILNews

Governor, Election Commission now defendants in Marion County election case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal suit that challenges the constitutionality of Marion County judicial elections has been amended to name the governor and members of the Indiana Election Commission as defendants.

Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana have amended their complaint that seeks a hearing on an injunction against enforcement of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13. The amended complaint in Common Cause v. Indiana Secretary of State, 1:12-CV-1603, was filed Thursday in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The complaint was amended after the state filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and is barred by the 11th Amendment. The state also claims that the secretary of state is powerless to enforce the law in question.

Common Cause in its complaint filed in November said the law setting forth the process for electing Marion Superior judges is “unique in Indiana, and perhaps in the nation.”

State law permits Democratic and Republican 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. Each party “slates” 10 candidates before the primary for 10 judicial vacancies allotted to each party. Voters in the general election then choose up to 20 judges of the 20 on the ballot.

The process of “slating” of Marion County Superior judicial 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 preceding 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.

No hearing has been set in the matter.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Slating?
    I think there needs to be a correction. I believe the lawsuit only challenges the process by which the Democrats nominate half the judges and the Republicans nominate half and everyone is elected in the fall, leaving voters without a choice. I don't believe the lawsuit challenges slating at all. Slating is a separate matter from the issue raised in the lawsuit.

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