Background
The City of Hammond and three voters challenged Indiana’s use of the Missouri Plan for selecting superior court judges in Lake County, arguing it violated Section two of the Voting Rights Act. The plan involves gubernatorial appointment from a nonpartisan commission list followed by retention elections. Plaintiffs argued the system gave minority voters less opportunity to elect judges of their choice compared to voters in other Indiana counties who participate in contested elections.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that while Section two litigation often concerns redistricting or election procedures, this case challenged the substantive method of judicial selection. The court observed that the legal landscape had changed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which held that Section two imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination. The court found no evidence that Indiana’s adoption of the Missouri Plan in 1973 was motivated by race, noting the decision followed a study recommending the change to address dissatisfaction with partisan elections. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ reliance on demographic disparities and a later affidavit did not establish the required inference of intentional discrimination.
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that merit-based judicial selection systems adopted for non-racial reasons remain valid under the Voting Rights Act even if they result in different electoral opportunities for minority voters compared to other jurisdictions.