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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT