Common Cause Indiana v. Individual Members of the Indiana Election Commission
800 F.3d 913
7th Cir.2015Background
- Indiana Code § 33-33-49-13 (the "Partisan Balance Statute") restricts each major party to nominating no more than half the available seats for Marion Superior Court; general-election contests are at-large and, since the statute’s current form, general ballots typically equal the number of seats, producing uncontested general elections.
- Marion Superior Court has 36 judges with staggered six-year terms; in practice primaries determine outcomes because each major party can only nominate half the slots.
- Access to the general ballot: (1) major-party primary (closed primary); (2) minor-party convention; (3) independent via petition; (4) write-in (with party-affiliation limits).
- Since the statute’s enactment, general elections have been effectively uncontested between the major parties; third-party/independent access has been rare and not competitive.
- Common Cause Indiana sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (via § 1983), district court granted plaintiff summary judgment and enjoined enforcement; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Statute burdens the right to vote / to cast an effective vote | Statute forecloses meaningful general-election choice by guaranteeing major-party nominees election and thus severely burdens voters’ rights | No constitutional right to a contested election; statute preserves primary role and permits third-party/independent access | Court: Statute severely burdens the right to cast a meaningful vote because it removes general-election choice and determines winners pre-general election |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny and balancing test | Apply Anderson/Burdick balancing: weigh severity of burden against state interests | Same framework; state asserts its interests justify the burden | Court applied Anderson/Burdick and found burden severe, requiring compelling justification which the State failed to provide |
| Whether State interests (partisan balance, impartiality, stability) justify the burden | Plaintiff: interests are insufficient or misdirected for judicial context; impartiality is enforced by judicial conduct rules | State: partisan balance preserves public confidence, prevents sweeps, reduces campaign costs and partisanship | Court: State interests do not justify the severe burden—partisan balance does not necessarily serve judicial impartiality and other means exist to protect interests |
| Whether precedents upholding limited voting/ minority-representation schemes govern this judicial-election context | Plaintiff: those precedents concern legislative/multi-member bodies and don’t translate to judicial impartiality concerns | State: cases like Blaikie, LoFrisco, Hechinger support constitutionality of limiting majority control for minority representation | Court: distinguishes those cases (legislative context) and finds they are not controlling for judicial elections; statutory burden here unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (balancing test for election regulations; severe burdens require narrowly tailored, compelling justification)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (framework for assessing burdens on voting and association rights)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (right to cast effective vote)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (primary as integral part of electoral process)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (ballot-access restrictions implicate association and voting rights)
- New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (upholding New York delegate-primary scheme; no constitutional right to a "fair shot" at nomination)
- Blaikie v. Power, 193 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. court upholding limited voting for minority representation; legislative context)