ILNews

Judge rejects interlocutory appeal in Marion Superior judiciary challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has denied the state of Indiana’s motion for an interlocutory appeal, signaling that a trial probably won’t be needed in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of how Marion Superior judges are elected.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Thursday denied the state’s motion for interlocutory appeal of the court’s September denial of a motion to dismiss.

Young’s September order allowed a lawsuit filed last year  by Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana to go forward. The suit seeks an injunction against enforcement of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13, the process for electing judges in the Marion Superior Courts. The suit claims the system is “unique in Indiana, and perhaps in the nation,” assuring Democrats and Republicans an equal share of judgeships.

The process allows the parties to “slate” candidates during the primary election with candidates who’ve provided donations to the parties. The suit claims the slating process deprives voters an opportunity to cast meaningful ballots during general elections.

Young on Thursday rejected state objections to his order denying a motion to dismiss the case. In refusing to certify the interlocutory appeal, he said the state’s concerns about lengthy discovery and costly pre-trial preparation were unpersuasive.

“This case involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute which governs the manner in which judges are elected to the Marion Superior Court. As such, any discovery that will be required will be limited and easily completed. And, once discovery is completed, this case will most likely be decided on summary judgment,” Young wrote.




   

 

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

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