Small towns can struggle to find candidates for judge. A proposal on the ballot aims to change that.

A small tweak in the Indiana Constitution could have a big impact on the ability of smaller communities to fill local judgeships.

House Enrolled Act 1019, signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun in February, asks voters in November to decide whether city and town judges can reside nearby but outside the municipal boundaries of the communities they serve.

The vote is the final step in a multiyear process for amending the Indiana Constitution and, if approved, solving a problem that has plagued the bench in rural areas.

“The constitution is a living, breathing document that’s always subject to change,” said state Rep. Michael Aylesworth, R-Hebron, who authored the proposal. He said Indiana’s process for amending its Constitution “is laborious to make sure that only good things come out, and that’s what we did this year.”

Currently, Article 6, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution states that a county, city or town judge must live and keep their offices within that jurisdiction’s legal boundaries. The provision was not part of the state’s original constitution that was established in 1816; the section was added to a revision ratified in 1851.

The section was implemented in an era in which Justice of the Peace courts were part of the state’s judicial infrastructure. In 1851, justices of the peace were constitutional officers who were elected by voters in a township to serve five-year terms. These justices did not have to be lawyers and could bring forward cases involving minor civil disputes, marriages and petty crimes, according to the Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, a digital resource of the Indianapolis Public Library.

The courts were abolished in 1976.

Aylesworth now calls the language of Article 6, Section 6, a “quirk” that simply doesn’t apply to modern times. In 2021, he tried to start the multistep effort to change the Indiana Constitution in 2021. But that resolution didn’t get a hearing in the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.

So he tried again in 2023, when the Legislature passed it — the first step in a long process. A proposed constitutional amendment must be adopted by two consecutive, separately elected Legislatures and then go before voters to be finalized. The Legislature approved the resolution again in 2025, making it eligible for the 2026 ballot.

This year, the Legislature approved HEA 1019 with the actual question that will appear on the ballot: “Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to permit the judge of a city or town court to reside in: (1) the county in which the court is located; or (2) the bordering county closest to the city or town in which the court is located?”

Aylesworth anticipates the amendment will pass easily in November. It has the support of Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush, who told The Indiana Lawyer in an email that she is “grateful we have members of the Legislature, including Rep. Aylesworth, who are committed to being excellent partners with the judicial branch.”

“His interest in ensuring wise use of valuable judicial resources is appreciated,” she said.

Aylesworth credits both Rush and a current Porter County judge with bringing the issue to his attention. Meeting the constitutional residency requirements is generally easier for cities with larger populations, but for smaller cities and towns such as Lowell — a southern Lake County community that sits about 10 miles south of Crown Point — the standard can be a hinderance.

From 2016 to 2020 — before he became a Porter County Superior Court judge — Christopher Buckley served as town judge for Lowell, which has a population of less than 11,000. But he wasn’t able to take the job until he established residency in the town. Instead of packing up his family and leaving Porter County, Buckley rented an apartment within the Lowell town limits to comply with the constitutional requirement.

Buckley has roots in the Lowell area — and his family is the namesake for the Buckley Homestead County Park, which is right on the outskirts of Lowell. So it seemed natural to represent the community. And the opportunity to serve as a judge in a town gave him time to learn the ropes before he sought to become a county court judge, he said.

“I got to try out my wings as judge down there part time while I was practicing” law, he said.

Although he was willing to make the extra effort to hold the position, it wasn’t always smooth sailing. Buckley ended up holding the position for longer than he was supposed to for the precise reason he originally rented an apartment in the town.

“They could not find someone to replace me because there was nobody on the Indiana bar who was registered to live inside the city limits of Lowell,” he said.

At the end of Buckley’s four-year term, he opted to give up the apartment. But the town couldn’t find a replacement. So the Indiana Supreme Court agreed that he could be appointed a judge pro tempore until the community found an alternative. That took several months.

Buckley has mixed opinions about the proposed constitutional requirement for city and town judges. On one hand, he thinks it’s important to appoint a judge who’s close to the town’s residents and can represent them effectively as a fellow member of the community.

On the other hand, it can be difficult to find someone to do that in smaller communities where registered attorneys are harder to come by. As a result, residents often don’t get to choose who represents them.

“To have that strict requirement of somebody who’s inside the city limits, it limits competition, and our entire country was based on competition,” he said. “So to have some competition for all those city and town court jobs, I think elevates those positions as well as makes sure that we have longevity.”

Buckley called the proposal on the ballot a compromise. It expands the geographical area in which a judge can live, he said, but still ensures they are close to the communities and the residents they serve.•