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.”•


  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?