837 F.3d 813
7th Cir.2016Background
- Common Cause challenged Indiana Code § 33-33-49-13, the statute governing Marion County Superior Court judicial nominations, arguing it burdened voters by limiting primary nominees from major parties; the district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and this Court affirmed.
- In May 2014 Marion County held primaries for 16 Superior Court seats; Bowes and Starkey (Democrats) finished outside the nominees and were excluded from the November 2014 general-election ballot under the Statute.
- Bowes and Starkey sued in August 2014 (after losing the primary) seeking injunctive relief to place them on the 2014 general-election ballot; after Common Cause’s district-court victory they amended to seek voiding of the 2014 results and a court-ordered special election (proposed for Nov. 8, 2016) limited to the 2014 primary slate.
- The district court granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion, declining to order a special election as an extraordinary equitable remedy; it weighed Gjersten equitable factors (timeliness, impact, and disruption to governance) and found plaintiffs’ request untimely and the burden on the county substantial.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed the denial of equitable relief for abuse of discretion and affirmed: plaintiffs’ delay, the limited demonstrated impact, the arbitrariness of a limited special-election remedy, and the significant disruption to administration of justice counseled against a special election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of plaintiffs’ suit for equitable relief | Plaintiffs acted promptly enough: Starkey moved to intervene before the primary and the complaint was filed months before the general election | Plaintiffs delayed: they knew of Common Cause, declared candidacies, yet waited until two months after the primary loss and close to the general election | Denied — court reasonably found plaintiffs’ request untimely and that delay undercuts equitable relief (abuse-of-discretion review) |
| Whether plaintiff showed the unconstitutional statute had a "significant impact" on the 2014 election | Plaintiffs argued past voting patterns and county-wide Democratic strength made it reasonably possible they would have prevailed absent the Statute | Defendants emphasized plaintiffs’ minimal campaigning and weak showing in the primary, undermining claims they would have won | Denied — plaintiffs did not establish a compelling enough likely impact; even if some impact existed, other equitable factors control |
| Appropriateness and scope of remedy (special election limited to 16 seats) | Plaintiffs proposed a special election limited to the 16 seats from 2014 to vindicate their rights with minimal disruption (hold on 2016 general-election day) | Defendants argued a limited remedy is arbitrary because the Statute affected all seats elected under that scheme, and courts should avoid imposing a judicially crafted election process on the state | Denied — court found the proposed narrow special election arbitrary and intrusive into state election machinery; state interest in orderly governance prevailed |
| Burden on state and voters vs. plaintiffs’ and voters’ rights | Plaintiffs claimed limited additional cost and disruption if tied to the 2016 general election; delayed remedy would leave voters without meaningful choice for years | Defendants highlighted substantial burdens: administrative costs, compressed preparation, candidate and judge disruption, and judicial/administrative impact on Marion County’s heavy caseload | Denied — balancing favored defendants: disruption and federalism concerns outweighed plaintiffs’ and voters’ interests in this extraordinary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gjersten v. Board of Election Commissioners for City of Chicago, 791 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1986) (special election is an extraordinary remedy; courts must weigh equitable factors and federalism concerns)
- Common Cause Ind. v. Individual Members of the Ind. Election Comm’n, 800 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2015) (Seventh Circuit affirmed district court’s holding that Marion County nomination statute was unconstitutional)
- Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1969) (ordering special election where exclusion from ballot likely changed outcome)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (judicial caution about federal courts restructuring state political processes; legislative role emphasized)
- Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1990) (delay in raising election claims can cause laches and prejudice; prompt challenges required in election cases)