ILNews

Marion County judicial 'slating fees' subject of 2 inquiries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney and an Indianapolis Bar Association political action committee want the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications to look into how Marion County judicial candidates contribute to political parties as part of the process in running to be a judge.

The two requests – one made in late December and the other in mid-January – focus on the Marion County selection system and the fees associated with that process, key issues as the county prepares for a majority of the Superior Court bench to be on the ballot this year.

il-paul-ogden04-15col.jpg Attorney Paul Ogden wants slating fees for Marion County judicial candidates prohibited. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The fees are an integral part of the judicial selection system that’s been in place since the mid-1970s.

Marion County is the only Indiana county that uses a unique hybrid method of trial judge selection. The method stems from complete removal of the county’s Republican judges after the Watergate scandal. The Indianapolis legal community worked for three years to craft the system now in place in order to avoid the same turnover.

The result: Republicans and Democrats get the same number of judicial candidate ballot spots. For the 2012 election, each party has 10 spots to fill the 20 available judicial seats in the May primary. The parties hold slating conventions where they endorse those who will appear on the ballot, and each party collects money from candidates to pay for election costs. If someone isn’t slated and decides not to run against the slated candidates, that person receives an 80 percent refund.

The Republicans ask for $12,000 while the Democrats ask for $13,500, according to both party chairmen. The fees are not mandatory and are strictly designed to help cover the costs, the parties contend.

“While Marion County’s slating process is bad for judicial selection, it is even more egregious when coupled with slating fees,” attorney Paul Ogden said. “As judges are desperately out trying to raise money to pay their respective slating fees, we attorneys receive a number of fundraising letters. We feel compelled to contribute, and it’s clear that most of this fundraising activity is designed to cover slating fees.”

Ogden submitted a letter Jan. 11 to the qualifications commission contending that the judicial candidate fees are required “slating fees” that the commission prohibited in a 1992 advisory opinion.

The opinion pointed to the state’s judicial canons that prohibit the parties from requiring slating fees, even though they could ask judges to voluntarily contribute.

In his letter, Ogden cites a letter he received from an attorney on behalf of a judicial candidate that says, “Funds are needed to cover the cost of mailings and general campaign expenses, to say nothing of the required and substantial recommended contribution to the candidate’s political party in order to be considered at the organization’s slating convention …”

Ogden’s letter asks the commission to find that the amounts are prohibited even if they are described as voluntary, and that any slating fees paid for the 2012 election on the Republican or Democratic side be returned.

The political parties deny that they require slating fees.

“Anyone who’d say this is a required slating fee absolutely doesn’t understand our system,” said Marion County Republican Party chair Kyle Walker. “It’s voluntary, and to say otherwise is faulty on its face.”

Marion County Democratic party chair Ed Treacy said that Democrats in the past submitted a report to the state’s highest court about the amounts collected from judicial candidates and the expenses incurred for elections, and no one raised any concern.

“To me, it’s only fair for everyone to equally share in the expenses,” he said. “If someone doesn’t want to pay, they can still run and no one can stop someone from seeking election. In America, you have to carry your own fair share. That’s what our system allows.”

The Indianapolis Bar Association’s Attorneys for an Independent Bench Political Action Committee also wants the commission to weigh in on the slating fees. Former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm and retired U.S. Magistrate V. Sue Shields, in their roles as co-chairs of the committee, made the request in late December.

The PAC’s work hasn’t fully started yet because of the questions about this fundraising practice, and Boehm also wonders if the IBA should be supporting a system that might conflict with professional conduct rules.

“A fundamental question this raises is should parties be using candidates as fundraising devices?” Boehm said. “This interjects campaign contributions into judicial races, and personally I think we’re better off without it.”

Marion County judges contacted by Indiana Lawyer who are on the bench or running for re-election declined to comment. But those contacted by the newspaper who have gone through the slating process and are no longer serving as a judge say their understanding has always been that the money is a required part of being endorsed by the political party. The question of appropriateness depends on who you ask.

When U.S. Judge William Lawrence ran for Marion Circuit judge in the 1990s, he said that slating fees were required and the legal community thought of them that way. That changed after the 1992 advisory opinion, but he said candidates were still expected to contribute. He left the state bench to become a federal magistrate a decade ago.

“This issue has been smoldering for years,” Lawrence said. “These fees are cash cows for the political parties, and they’ve been what’s standing in the way of changing the judicial selection process in Marion County.”

Former Marion Superior Judge Gary Miller, who was not slated in 2008 along with two other longtime judges, always had the understanding that the slating fees were required. Often, the slating comes down to those who are politically connected, not necessarily best qualified, he said. In his years of paying a fee, Miller said it equated to about $13,000.

“I’m torn, as a party loyalist who thinks there is a legitimate reason to ask candidates to contribute to these costs,” he said. “But I think it’s a bit unfair to use judicial candidates to raise substantial amounts for other candidates, which is what happens.”

Miller hopes the system eventually changes.

“At some point, we’re going to convince the parties that judges are different and shouldn’t be on the same type of slating and used as fundraising mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll convince them that we’re different than other elected officials. But we’re not there yet.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • judicial slating fees
    Yup, in Marion County we surely do have the best justice money can buy.
  • Slating Fees
    If Republican slating fees are $12,000 they've been lowered. They as of very recently was $25,000.

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT