Kristine Guerra and Marisa Kwiatkowski

Judicial candidates in Marion County aren't elected like everyone else.

The two major political parties conduct primary elections in which they nominate candidates for the exact number of judicial seats to be filled. That means those who get party nominations in the primary are virtually assured of winning in the general election.

Marion County's system is now likely to change. And the Indiana General Assembly ultimately might have to craft a new system of electing judges.

Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled Thursday that the current state law governing how judges are elected in Marion County is unconstitutional. An Indianapolis Star investigation in March raised issues about the fairness of the county's judicial election system.

The ruling comes almost two years after the nonprofit Common Cause Indiana challenged the statute in a lawsuit filed against the Indiana secretary of state, Indiana's chief election official. The lawsuit was filed in November 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Common Cause, a nonpartisan group that advocates for ethics, constitutional law and elimination of barriers to voting.

In his 19-page ruling, Young said the current system denies voters the opportunity to meaningfully vote for a judicial candidate.

Julia Vaughn, policy director for Common Cause, applauded the ruling and said judicial selection has been a "cruel joke" on Marion County voters.

"It put party bosses in control of the process," she said. "Voters should be in control of the process to select judges."

The state argued that the current system makes judicial elections more manageable. Marion Superior Court has 36 judges who hear most criminal and civil cases. They serve six-year terms and are elected in two election cycles.

Defendants also raised concerns that turning elections into a "free-for-all" system could lead to intense partisanship and expensive campaigning, and that "including scores of candidates could lead to voter confusion and voter fatigue and the inability of voters to understand what any particular candidate stands for," according to court documents.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, called the reasoning "ridiculous."

"You can't protect the electorate from confusion by having a system where voting doesn't make any difference," he said.

Young disagreed with the defendants' arguments, saying their concerns don't justify maintaining the status quo in Marion County, according to documents. He also said the current system is more partisan and political because Democratic and Republican candidates must compete against members of the same party for nomination. Political parties ask judicial candidates seeking endorsement to make contributions. Each party nominates half of the candidates needed to fill judicial seats.

Kyle Walker, chairman of the Marion County Republican Party, said he disagrees with Young's ruling, which, he said, conforms with the judge's "apparent personal bias against judicial elections in general."

"In doing so, he is striking down a system thoughtfully created by the Indiana General Assembly which consistently results in a bipartisan, accountable, and extremely well-respected judiciary," Walker said in a written statement to The Star.

The Indianapolis Bar Association said it intends to offer its assistance in crafting a remedy to address the decision.

"Marion County has been well served by its excellent judges over the years, and inclusive engagement of all interested parties in creating a new judicial selection method will ensure that continues," the association said in a statement.

The Indiana attorney general's office, which represents the state, declined to comment.

The state has 30 days to file an appeal. Young has issued a stay that will be in effect during that 30-day period. If the state appeals, the stay will remain in effect until a final decision is made by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because of the stay and the fact that the next judicial election won't be until 2018, the state legislature will have four years to figure out how to fix the system, said Joel Schumm, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

Schumm, appellate court Judge John Baker and former Supreme Court Justice Ted Boehm advocate for Marion County to move to a merit selection system, such as the ones used in Lake and St. Joseph counties.

Under merit selection, a judicial nominating commission made up of lawyers and laypeople interviews applicants and recommends candidates to the governor, who makes the final decision.

Proponents of such a system include the American Judicature Society, American Bar Association and Indiana State Bar Association.

"I think the selection of judges should be as far removed from the need to raise money as possible," Boehm said. "In a large metropolitan area, it's impractical to know who these judges are and to exercise an intelligent vote."

Baker said there have long been problems with Marion County's "pay-to-play" system, in which the major political parties ask judicial candidates seeking endorsement to pay thousands of dollars to the party.

"I'm glad that somebody had the gumption to challenge it," Baker said, "but now that we know it's wrong, we have to come up with something that's right."

Vaughn, of Common Cause, acknowledged concerns that holding traditional elections for judges could lead to excessive campaign contributions from attorneys, who are more likely to be interested in judicial elections than the general public. She said the legislature could impose special campaign finance rules that would either limit the amount of contributions from attorneys or, more radically, ban all contributions from lawyers.

She said another option would be a system used by Vanderburgh County in which judges run in nonpartisan races.

Call Star reporter Kristine Guerra at (317) 444-6209. Follow her on Twitter: @kristine_guerra.