A Study in an Expansive Judiciary: Porter County Asks Court to Overstep Bounds.

For a moment, I am going to overlook the particular pros and cons of remaining in or getting out of the RDA. The more important issue for me is the massive expense that such litigation will inevitably waste, and the fact that the County is asking the courts to step in where they do not belong. For those that have not read, Dan Whitten has formally filed the lawsuit that he spoke so adamantly of in months past. (For full discussion, see here: Porter County Council files suit against RDA.)

I would like to discuss what I find legally and constitutionally most troubling in order of precedence:

1. Separation of Powers - Political Question. Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as well as Articles 3 and 7 of the Indiana Constitution separate the judiciary from the political branches of government. Specifically, the respective Constitutions restrain the judiciary from exercising power over what are referred to as “political questions”. It was the intention of the framers to avoid the reach of an expansive judiciary by limiting the amount a court may exercise a quasi-legislative function. Just as in other controversial matters recently avoided by the local courts, this requires any Indiana Court to immediately dismiss claims such as these.

2. State Supremacy. Counties are creations, mere subdivisions of state government. Let me be clear: there is no parallel federalism provision of the state Constitution. Counties are subordinate to, and mere implementations of, state government. (see I.C. § 32-1-1-1, et. seq.). Measures passed by the State of Indiana cannot be contradicted or otherwise altered at the county level. Any conflicts will be resolved in favor of the state. Since the measure forming the RDA was done by the state legislature, any effort to circumvent it should be denied in the courts. What Whitten should have done if his complaint had actual substance is to lobby the proper body—the state legislature.

3. Judicial Precedent. After some legal research on my part, there is nothing to suggest that a court hearing this matter has the authority to intervene in such a dispute under Indiana law. A court attempting to enforce the Council’s decision to withdraw from the RDA is severely overstepping its Constitutional, statutory, and stare decisis, authority.

In conclusion, a competent court should dismiss this matter before even a cursory review. In the instance that a court decides to exercise extra-judicial powers over this matter, it will without a doubt be reversed at the Appellate or State Supreme Court level, only further burdening Porter County taxpayers with needless litigation. My greatest fear in all of government is where a judiciary oversteps and individuals, (technically elected or not) unilaterally make political decisions on behalf of the citizens. That is a delineated function of the other branches of government. Whether it is the tyranny of nine at the Federal level, or the dictatorship of a single "elected" local superior or circuit court judge, it is equally as troubling.

Whether you agree or not with the principal of withdrawing from the RDA, isn’t the cure here worse than the disease? In other words, shouldn’t the cost of frivolous litigation outweigh any short term, personal political gains for Dan Whitten…? Should he be able to use Porter County funds as well as the state judiciary for his own personal benefit?