State v. Buncich

• Decision Date: 22 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 45S00–1409–PL–587.,45S00–1409–PL–587.
• Citation: 51 N.E.3d 136
• Parties: STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Defendant below), v. John BUNCICH, in his Capacity as Chairman of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, Christine M. Russell, individually, Randolph Palmateer, individually, Randy DeSalvo, individually, Herbert Smith, Jr., individually, Cathline Navejas, individually, Edwardo D. Banda, Sr., individually, and Scott M. Rakos, individually, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

51 N.E.3d 136

STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Defendant below)

v.John BUNCICH, in his Capacity as Chairman of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, Christine M. Russell, individually, Randolph Palmateer, individually, Randy DeSalvo, individually, Herbert Smith, Jr., individually, Cathline Navejas, individually, Edwardo D. Banda, Sr., individually, and Scott M. Rakos, individually, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).

No. 45S00–1409–PL–587.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 22, 2016.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, Stephen R. Creason, Chief Counsel, Kyle Hunter, Larry D. Allen, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Clay M. Patton, Osan & Patton LLP, Valparaiso, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

On Direct Appeal

MASSA

, Justice.

Indiana Code section 3–11–1.5–3.4

created a Small Precinct Committee in Lake County and directed it to identify precincts with fewer than 500 active voters that may be amenable to consolidation, a measure intended to reduce election costs in a county that is home to over 15% of our state's small precincts. Implementing such a consolidation plan, however, could jeopardize the offices of some precinct committeepersons, who brought suit challenging the Statute. We are asked to decide whether this piece of legislation is contrary to our Indiana Constitution. Finding it is neither an impermissible special law nor a violation of our separation of powers doctrine, we determine the Statute is constitutionally sound, and accordingly, we reverse the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

The Lake County Board of Elections and Registration is a statutorily created body, unique among Indiana's counties,¹ that is responsible for organizing elections there. Ind.Code § 3–6–5.2–6 (2005)

. The five-member Board is comprised of the circuit court clerk plus two members of each major political party, appointed by their respective county chairmen. Ind.Code § 3–6–5.2–4. The day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the director and assistant director of the Board, also appointed by the county chairmen. Ind.Code § 3–6–5.2–7.

In March of 2014, the General Assembly enacted Indiana Code section 3–11–1.5–3.4

(Supp.2015) (“the Statute”), which similarly applies only to Lake County.² 2014 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 64–2014 (West). The Statute aimed to reduce the cost of election administration by consolidating small precincts, defined as those with 500 active voters or fewer. Ind.Code § 3–11–1.5–3.4(e). At the time of the Statute's enactment, 130 of Lake County's 525 precincts qualified as small, more than double that of any other county. Indeed, the next highest number came from Allen County with 57 small precincts out of 338; Marion County had only 19 small precincts of 600.

To address this disparity, the Statute mandated the creation of another body in Lake County, called a “Small Precinct Committee,” consisting of the five Board members plus any other individuals it unanimously appoints. Ind.Code § 3–11–1.5–3.4(c), (d)

. The Committee was directed to (1) identify the County's small precincts, (2) determine if any adjoining precincts could be combined consistent with precinct boundary law, and (3) estimate the potential savings that would result from consolidation. Ind.Code § 3–11–1.5–3.4(e). Once the Committee's work was complete, the Statute provided that the Board would adopt a proposed order “implementing the findings,” which would be filed with the election division and—provided there were no objections—would take effect at the start of 2015. Ind.Code § 3–11–1.5–3.4(f), (g).

As required by the Statute, the Board duly created the Small Precinct Committee in June of 2014; it consisted of the five Board members, along with Director Michelle Fajman and Assistant Director Patrick Gabrione. The Committee determined there were 76 small precincts amenable to consolidation, which would save the county around $43,000 per election, $87,000 per election year, and $435,000 over the next five years. Through the course of its study, the Committee also discovered there were some precincts with more than 1200 voters, in violation of state law and in need of being addressed. Of course, consolidation would mean that some committeepersons could lose their office before their elected term expired.

Before the Board met to act upon the Committee's plan, the Lake County Democratic Central Committee and five Democratic precinct committeepersons (collectively, “Buncich”) sought declaratory judgment and an injunction, asserting the Statute was unconstitutional as special legislation under Article 4, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution

and violated the separation of powers doctrine recognized in Article 3, Section 1 because certain committeepersons would be subject to removal just months after being elected. The State opposed, arguing any harm was speculative since the Statute merely required formation of a committee and completion of a study; if Buncich objected to the plan eventually adopted by the Board, whatever it may be, he could seek review from the Indiana Election Division.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, without prior notice to the State, Buncich moved to consolidate with the merits of the case. The State objected, stating such a request would be premature, as more statistical analysis may be needed. The trial court reserved a ruling on the motion, wanting to wait and see what evidence would be presented. At the hearing, both sides relied mostly on the same statewide precinct data from July of 2014,³ which shows that of Lake County's 520 precincts, 174 of them, or 33.46%, are small precincts. And, of the 5324 precincts statewide, 20.83% are small.

The parties' respective analyses of those numbers, however, tell two very different stories about Lake County. As Buncich points out, nearly all—89 of 92—Indiana counties have small precincts, and presumably, all counties could benefit from reduced election costs. Moreover, Lake County is not alone in its proportion of small precincts: in 27 other counties, small precincts account for 33% or more of the total precincts. The State responds by distinguishing Lake County based on its relative size, indicating it makes sense for smaller, more rural counties to have a larger proportion of small precincts “given the nature of population distribution.” Tr. at 25

. But Lake County is a larger, predominantly urban county with “an inordinate number of [small] precincts given its relatively dense population.” App. at 35. More specifically, of the 27 other counties with 33% or more small precincts, all but one have fewer than 40 total precincts; in contrast, Lake County has 520 total precincts, over seven times more than the next highest county in that group.⁴ Among the four most populous counties, Lake County has more small precincts than Marion, Allen, and Hamilton combined.⁵ And, of all 92 counties, it has more than twice as many small precincts as the next highest county, accounting for over 15% of Indiana's small precincts.

Buncich also presented evidence at the hearing that the responsibilities of precinct committeepersons include filling vacancies, should they occur, in elected positions. And several precinct committeepersons—who had just been elected in May of 2014—testified that they are “at risk” of losing their positions, although the parties stipulated that the Board has not yet made a decision on which precincts are to be consolidated and which committeepersons eliminated. Tr. at 39

, 42, 46 –48, 50.

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court granted Buncich's motion to consolidate a ruling on the merits. Finding nearly all Indiana counties have small precincts and have an interest in consolidating precincts to realize cost savings, the trial court concluded there are “no unique circumstances that rationally justify the application of the Statute solely to Lake County and not to all of Indiana's remaining 91 counties.” App. at 145. In addition to ruling the Statute violates Article 4, Section 23

as impermissible special legislation, the trial court determined its impact on precinct committeepersons violates separation of powers principles, embodied in Article 3, Section 1.

The State filed this direct appeal, over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b)

.

Standard of Review

We review the constitutionality of an Indiana statute without deferring to the trial court's ruling. Zoeller v. Sweeney, 19 N.E.3d 749, 751 (Ind.2014)

. Instead, the statute comes before us afresh, “clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. (quoting Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.1996) ). We resolve all doubts in favor of the legislature, Id.; thus, if there are multiple interpretations, we will choose the path that upholds the statute. Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332, 338 (Ind.1999). It is the party seeking to strike down the statute who bears the burden of proof, and that burden is particularly heavy where, as here, he challenges the statute on its face: the claimant must show “no set of circumstances under which the statute can be constitutionally applied.” Id. at 337.

The Statute Is Constitutionally Permissible Special Legislation.

In Indiana, “where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State.” Ind. Const. art. 4, § 23

(emphasis added). The purpose of this provision is to prevent the legislature from providing a benefit to or imposing a burden on one locality and not others, as allowing such practices would encourage logrolling and result in an irregular system of laws. Mun. City of S. Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683, 685–86 (Ind.2003). Of course, as Article 4, Section 23 implies, while our drafters expressed a preference for general laws, there are cases in which a general law cannot be made applicable statewide. Ind. Gaming Comm'n v. Moseley, 643 N.E.2d 296, 300 (Ind.1994). In...