IBJOpinion

VAUGHN: Courts will decide basic election issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Julia VaughnAlthough voters in Marion County won’t cast ballots for City-County elections until 2015, two courts are considering cases that will have a major impact on local elections.

The Indiana Supreme Court will once again get the final say on how City-County Council districts are divided—a vital matter since where the lines fall affects who gets elected and which party controls the council.

And, the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana will decide if Marion County party bosses will continue to be the only votes that matter in county judicial elections.

The events of the past two years mirror what happened 10 years ago when the state Supreme Court was called in to settle partisan bickering over new maps.

While it is not at all surprising that we find ourselves back at the same place, what is disappointing is that this long, expensive and divisive argument could have been avoided if redistricting were about voters’ choosing their representatives instead of being about incumbent politicians trying to gain advantage.

While most agree that the maps drawn by the court in 2003 make sense and have served voters well, the problem with a court-driven redistricting process is that it gives the public no input.

That’s why the court should choose one of the maps submitted to the council in the public process conducted in 2012.

I am, of course, partial to the map created by the Common Cause Indiana board because I know it was created in a common-sense way that sought to protect communities of interest and the rights of minority voters while enhancing competition for council elections.

And while it’s the Supreme Court’s responsibility to finish the job our ultra-partisan council couldn’t get done, it’s time to make sure this doesn’t happen again. A bipartisan team of state legislators from Marion County should sponsor legislation to give the task of local redistricting to a nonpartisan commission of community representatives. A similar system works in Lake County.

While the Indiana Supreme Court is deciding who will run from what districts in 2015, federal Judge Richard L. Young has been asked to decide if Marion County voters will get a real say in county judicial elections.

The American Civil Liberties Union-Indiana and Common Cause Indiana are challenging the county’s unique judicial selection process that puts the major party bosses in control, making the public vote a meaningless exercise.

While I understand that the Marion County process was put into place decades ago to ensure this community would have a bipartisan bench, we are no longer a one-party county, so the law has outlived its usefulness.

Instead of guaranteeing political diversity, an undeniably important goal, the major impact has been to deny voters our constitutional right to cast a meaningful vote for Superior Court judge. Voting for judges in Marion County shouldn’t be reduced to ratifying the decisions of a handful of partisan honchos.

Our lawsuit has already survived several obstacles, including attempts by the state to have it thrown out, and we look forward to our day in court.

Unfortunately, this issue will not likely be resolved in time for the next round of local elections. And, the court will only answer the question of whether the current system is constitutional; it won’t put a new judicial selection process in place.

If the Marion County process is invalidated, state policymakers will decide if voters, or a judicial nominating commission, make these decisions. Either way is a big improvement over the status quo.•

__________

Vaughn is policy director for Common Cause/Indiana, a nonpartisan citizens lobbying organization that works for open, honest and accountable government. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT