7th Circuit overturns unique halvsies procedure for judicial elections
A judicial election system that produces an even split of Democratic and Republican judges is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) on Wednesday that the judicial selection system, used only in one Indiana county, burdens the right to vote and violates the First Amendment rights of voters. The Indiana Lawyer has a report.
The system used in Marion County, which includes Indianapolis, appears to be unique in the United States, according to the opinion. It works this way: The major political parties (in practice, they are the Republicans and Democrats) may nominate candidates for no more than half of the eligible seats on the county superior court. The candidates run in primaries, and the winners then run at large in the general election.
There are different provisions that determine how minor party candidates and independents may get on the judicial ballot, but they are rarely used. In the 40 years the “partisan balance statute” has been on the books, only two judicial elections had third-party candidates on the general election ballot. There were five Libertarians on the judicial ballot in 2000 and one in 2002; all lost in the general election.
In all the other elections, the Republican and Democratic parties each chose half the judicial candidates, who then ran unopposed in the general election. As a result, there has been an even split between Republican and Democratic judges in 40 years of judicial elections in the county.
The case is Common Cause v. Individual Members of the Indiana Election Commission.
