Public Question 2Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Expand local judge residency
Explain it like I'm 5
City and town judges currently must live in the city or town where their court is located. This change would let them live in that county or in the closest bordering county, giving towns a bigger pool of possible judges.
Yes vote
A city or town court judge could live in the county where the court is located or in the bordering county closest to the court.
No vote
City and town court judges would continue to have to live in the city or town where their court is located.
The question to ask yourself
Is a larger nearby candidate pool more important than requiring the judge to live inside the city or town served?
The case for
- Gives small or rural towns more qualified candidates when few lawyers live inside town limits.
- May make it easier to fill judicial vacancies without allowing judges to live far away.
- Keeps judges within the court's county or the closest bordering county.
Backed by: Rep. Michael Aylesworth, Chief Justice Loretta Rush, Indiana House Republican Caucus
The case against
- A judge who lives outside the city or town may have less direct connection to local concerns.
- Changing the Constitution for a narrow residency rule may be unnecessary.
- Residents may expect a local judge to live in the same community and remain directly accountable to it.
Opposed by: Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith
- Money
- No direct tax effect or cost estimate is stated in the sources; the fiscal effect is not estimated.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say judges could live anywhere, because the amendment limits residence to the court's county or the closest bordering county.