60 F. Supp. 3d 982
S.D. Ind.2014Background
- Marion County elects 36 Superior Court judges for six-year terms; judges run at-large and not by division.
- Indiana Code § 33-33-49-13(b) caps each political party’s primary nominees at no more than half the open judgeships, so general-election slates often leave many seats uncontested.
- Only parties whose Secretary of State candidate received ≥10% in the prior general election hold primaries (effectively Republicans and Democrats); independents/third parties can reach the general ballot via petition, minor-party convention, or write-in declaration.
- Plaintiff Common Cause of Indiana (nonpartisan voter-rights group) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the Statute as a First Amendment vote/association burden; defendants are the Secretary of State, members of the Indiana Election Commission, and the Governor.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; the court found the facts undisputed and resolved constitutional issues as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Common Cause) | Statute denies members meaningful votes in general election; injury traceable and redressable by invalidating the Statute | Invalidating Statute won’t change primary access or guarantee more competition; thus no redress | Common Cause has standing; injury is traceable and redressable |
| Standing (Governor) | N/A (Governor challenged as defendant) | Governor argues general enforcement duty insufficient to be proper defendant | Governor is a proper party because he has a specific statutory duty to issue judicial commissions |
| Burden on voting/association rights | Statute artificially limits voters’ meaningful choices in general election by design, creating effectively uncontested seats | Statutory access routes for independents/third parties and possibility of additional qualifying parties mean no severe burden | Statute severely burdens the right to vote; New York Lopez Torres distinction shows mere petition access insufficient here |
| State interests / justification | N/A | Statute furthers interests in manageable ballots, preventing factionalism, voter confusion, and protecting judicial impartiality | Defendants’ asserted interests are unsupported and not sufficiently tailored; statute not narrowly drawn and unconstitutional on its face |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (sets balancing test for burdens on voting and association)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applies flexible scrutiny for election regulations; severe burdens require narrow tailoring)
- New York State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008) (upheld delegate-convention system where petition access provided adequate opportunity to reach general ballot)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (confirms use of Anderson/Burdick framework for voting-rights challenges)