Pros And Cons Of Non-Partisan Elections

Starting in 1967 The General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment to elect non-partisan judges to both the Supreme and Appellate Courts. This system allows justices and judges to stand unopposed for a retention vote in the general election. An approval vote starts a new ten-year term for the incumbent judge or justice. A rejection makes the office vacant for appointment. Judges in the lower levels are still chosen by election. With a few exceptions, most candidates for the trial courts compete in partisan primary elections. The trial courts are made up of the circuit, superior, and probate courts. There are 317 judges elected to the trial court positions that fulfill six year terms. While a direct popular vote may seem democratic, it places partisan lines where they do not need to be. Voters will tend to not look into the potential judge’s credentials, but rather vote along party lines, regardless of if the candidate has a platform or not. A good solution to the partisan issue would be to have non-partisan elections as is done in Vanderburgh County. By removing the partisan affiliation next to the candidates’ names on the ballots, hopefully citizens would feel more obliged to actually learn about the candidates, their careers, credentials, and their qualifications. Moving …show more content…
Home rule was started in the early 1900s and now most states have adopted some form of the policy. Indiana was late to this trend, adopting home rule into the code in 1980. Home rule was adopted as a means of easing the responsibilities of state government. Home rule gave power to the local governments meaning that the state government did not have to play as active of a role in the less important local government issues. This is similar to the relationship between the federal and state governments. As long as the Indiana constitution does not explicitly deny something the local government has the ability to do