Bowes v. Indiana Secretary of State

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying motion by plaintiffs (unsuccessful primary candidates for Indiana Superior Court judge) to void 2014 general election results for Superior Court judge for purposes of holding special election that would include plaintiffs, along with the successful candidates in 2014 general election, where statute setting forth procedures for holding primary election for Superior Court judge were found to be unconstitutional. While plaintiffs argued that proposed special election was only way to vindicate their constitutional rights, Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiffs’ request for special election was untimely, where plaintiffs filed their request for preliminary injunction only three months prior to 2014 general election and two months after losing in primary election. Moreover, requests for special elections are rarely granted, and in balancing plaintiffs’ right to be on ballot against state’s significant interest in getting on with process of governing after established election cycle is complete, plaintiffs failed to overcome said significant interests, where burden of special election would fall on county judiciary (for having to void elections of 16 judges), other candidates (who would be required to endure expense of second election) and county clerk. Ct. further noted that Indiana had not yet established new procedures for electing Superior Court judges at time of plaintiffs’ request.