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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT