How the Legislature’s redistribution of judges is affecting rural counties

A new law approved earlier this year stripped judges and other judicial officers from several of Indiana’s rural counties and moved those positions elsewhere to meet the growing needs of places such as Hamilton County.

As 2026 inches closer, some of the judicial officers in the affected counties are expressing concern about the changes, fearing rural Indiana could continue to be a legislative target in the years to come.

The main beneficiary

The primary beneficiary of the new law was Hamilton County, which is set to gain four new judicial officers: two magistrates and two superior court judges.

The two new magistrates, Karen Morris and Sarah Shields, were sworn in this summer, but how their addition has impacted the county’s overall caseload is still uncertain.

“It’s too soon to tell,” Hamilton Superior Court Judge Jonathan Brown said in an interview with The Indiana Lawyer.

Brown noted that the county has needed new judges for several years and that the current judges are underwater on their caseloads.

“Everything keeps increasing because the population growth is coming, like we can’t bury our head in the sand,” Brown said. “It’s the hard part about being in a growing county.”

Based on U.S. census data, Hamilton County’s population has more than doubled since 2000.

State Rep. Chris Jeter, a Fishers Republican and the new law’s author, has said previously that the bill used the state’s weighted caseload management system to help determine which counties could handle the cutbacks and which ones needed more judges.

And according to the 2024 caseload, Jeter’s home county of Hamilton was listed as one of the top counties in need.

“This is why cooperating and working together is so important, because you have to be transparent with the elected officials,” Brown said.

Brown said this was his third time asking for new judicial officers since he became a judge in Hamilton.

He said that he understands the budget consciousness of elected officials, even noting his own conservative leanings.

“I don’t like spending money, and I sure as heck don’t like spending other people’s money,” Brown said. “We have a way of doing things up here in Hamilton County where it’s like…we ask for what we need, not what we want.”

Although the legislation wasn’t introduced until this spring, Brown says he remembers Hamilton County first asking for new judicial officers back in 2023.

“The process in Indiana to get new judges, it’s time consuming, and it’s not instantaneous, and, you know, it’s a challenge,” he said.

Although the two new magistrates in Hamilton County have already gotten to work, the two new superior court judges won’t be added until next year’s elections.

Candidacy filings for the new positions won’t open until January, but several candidates have already expressed their desire to run for both the two new courts and two current superior courts, following judges William Hughes and Richard Campbell’s decision not to run for reelection, Brown said.

And given that Hamilton’s $65 million Government and Judicial Center expansion project has not begun construction at the time of this writing, adding the two superior courts could cause some initial scheduling issues, Brown noted.

“It’s supposed to be any day now, and I have a feeling the shovels will start hitting the ground in January,” Brown said.

Brown predicts workers will begin moving into the new office space in at least 18 to 20 months.

The other additions

Aside from Hamilton County’s additions, other counties that scored more judicial officers included Elkhart, which acquired two more magistrates, and Lawrence and Vigo, both of which gained an additional magistrate.

Elkhart now has seven elected judges and four magistrates, an expansion that Elkhart Superior Court 6 Judge David Bonfiglio says has helped make caseloads now manageable.

“We get everybody in within a timely manner now,” he said. “We don’t have to stretch things out 60 days or so; we can get everybody in within 30 or 40 days, at the maximum, when we’re really busy.”

The new magistrates started their roles on July 1, and they have been assigned to the criminal and family divisions, respectively.

“We feel fortunate to have gained the two judicial officers,” Bonfiglio said.

For Elkhart, which doesn’t request new judicial officers often, Bonfiglio said he doesn’t expect the county to ask for more officers for at least another 10 years.

“It just kind of depends on how the community grows,” he said.

For Lawrence County, the addition of their new magistrate position didn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

According to Lawrence Circuit Court Administrator Ashley Case, the new magistrate was originally the county’s juvenile referee—a judicial officer who may preside over hearings but doesn’t have some of the same formal powers as magistrates.

“We just changed her title on paper,” Case said.

She said she thinks Lawrence is adequately able to serve the community with the four officials at this time.

“The need could increase, but at this time, I feel like we’re adequately servicing the community,” Case said.

Short end of the stick

The judicial shifting didn’t result in as many cuts as the plan initially approved by the Indiana Senate on April 16, which called for the removal of 11 trial courts.

Still, the Blackford County Superior Court and a Monroe County Circuit Court were slashed, as well as a magistrate position in Jennings County and six magistrate positions in Marion County.

Blackford County, with a population of just under 12,000 in 2024, will maintain its single superior court until 2028, before being terminated. Then all the judicial responsibilities for the county will fall to its single circuit court judge.

For Nick Barry, judge of Blackford Superior Court, why his county was singled out from the rest of that original pack eyed for removal is unknown to him.

He’s now troubled that rural counties could continue to be a target.

“My concern going forward for all judicial officers is now the Legislature has an appetite for this,” Barry said. “They’ve proven that they can do it, and I don’t think any small county, rural county, should feel safe going forward.”

Barry said he thinks rural counties are “going to be hurt” by this, pointing out that experienced attorneys may be hesitant to become judges in rural counties for fear of a lack of job security.

“It’s going to make it less inviting to want to be a judge in a superior court in a rural county,” he said.

Barry said he was surprised by the changes this year, as was Jennings Circuit Court Judge Murielle Bright.

“We knew, probably sometime in the next five years, there was going to be changes,” Bright said. “But how quickly and just how sweeping it was was a complete shock.”

Jennings County is set to lose its magistrate position, currently held by Christopher Doran, by the end of 2025, leaving the circuit and superior court judges in place.

When Jennings acquired its magistrate position in 2021, Bright said everything became “manageable.”

We were able to do a problem-solving court, which now we have two, but because of the magistrate, we were able to start one pretty much right after he started,” Bright said. “It gave us some flexibility and the ability to do new things.”

Now, Bright will be absorbing some of Doran’s caseload, including juvenile cases and family law matters.

Bright said she sees some concerns coming at the beginning of the year, specifically regarding scheduling, as the court gets used to not having the magistrate anymore.

“We’re probably going to turn back to being over-utilized, but hopefully still manageable,” she said, adding that the rate of case filings each year is hard to predict.

The case study

The Legislature’s new law was driven largely by the state’s weighted caseload system.

Judges Barry and Bright expressed some reservations about the system, but both acknowledged that they understand the need for it.

The measurement system began in 1996 and has been used to establish a uniform statewide method for comparing trial court caseloads, according to the Indiana Judicial Branch.

Through the system, judicial officers are asked to track their time spent on case-related activities, like hearings, trial preparation, settlements, opinions, orders and more, so the state can gain a better understanding of each court’s needs compared to its available resources.

One particular flaw that Barry sees in the system is that it gives more weight to time spent on higher-level felonies, like cases dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony, compared to possibly similar time spent ruling in a case involving dealing in marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor.

Bonfiglio was more supportive of the system, but emphasized that it’s only as good as the information the judges provide it with.

“As long as the judicial officers give them good data, then it’s like, it’s really helpful,” Bonfiglio said. “It can be a really good, helpful tool.”

The judges said the information is collected and sent to the National Center for State Courts to be analyzed.

According to the 2024 study, Blackford County was ranked 88th out of 92 counties in severity of need for judicial officers, Jennings County was ranked 77th and Monroe County, which will lose a circuit court seat at the end of 2026, ranked 70th.

Marion’s place in all this

Under the new law, Marion County lost six magistrate positions from the Marion Juvenile Courts, but according to Luke Britt, public information officer and legal counsel for the Marion County Superior Courts, those positions were already vacant.

Looking ahead, a bill was introduced this month that could bring back a magistrate position to Marion County.

House Bill 1033, authored by State Rep. Danny Lopez, R-Carmel, would increase the number of magistrates the Marion County court executive committee can appoint from 27 to 28.

That bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.•