ILNews

Judge sets January hearing in Marion County judicial slating suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has summoned attorneys for Gov. Mike Pence, Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson and members of the Indiana Election Commission to a pretrial conference in a lawsuit challenging the way Marion Superior judges are elected.

Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch issued an order last week calling together parties next month for an initial pretrial conference. The suit, brought by Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, seeks to declare unconstitutional the slating system used to elect Indianapolis judges.

In setting the conference, Lynch said counsel for named parties are expected to appear in person and “must have thorough knowledge of the case.” The judge indicated that their clients could attend, but were not required to do so.

Common Cause and the ACLU are challenging the “slating” system in Marion County. Under the slating system, the Democrat and Republican parties each nominate or slate judges to fill a fixed and equal number of judgeships that the law assures each party of filling. The complaint seeks to block future enforcement of I.C. 33-33-49-13.

“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 to the United States Constitution,” the complaint says.

The system has been derided by many as corrupt. Those who earned their party’s blessing and were slated in 2012 also each gave generously to their respective parties, an Indiana Lawyer review of campaign finance records found. For Democrats, the contribution was $13,100; for Republicans, $12,000.

The conference is set for 10 a.m. Jan. 17 in room 227 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis.

The case before Chief Judge Richard Young in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana is Common Cause Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State in her official capacity, Individual Members of the Indiana Election Commission, in their official capacities, Governor of the State of Indiana, in his official capacity, 1:12-cv-1603-RLY-DML. Young in September dismissed the state’s motion to dismiss the suit.

“Although Indiana’s ballot access statute … has been found constitutionally adequate … the court is not convinced that the statute’s constitutionality with respect to a candidate’s access to the ballot applies here with equal force, where the claim is not ballot access, but whether a citizen’s vote in the general election matters,” Young wrote.








 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not Slating
    Unfortunately the lawsuit is not about "slating." It's about the law that says that everyone who wins the primary wins the general election. Slating is pre-primary. There is a lot of problems with it but it's not an issue in the lawsuit.
  • Not Slating
    Unfortunately the lawsuit is not about "slating." It's about the law that says that everyone who wins the primary wins the general election. Slating is pre-primary. There is a lot of problems with it but it's not an issue 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 can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT