ILNews

5 political candidates file lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three judicial candidates in Marion County and two candidates for the Indiana House are suing the county Board of Voter Registration and Election Board, alleging they were denied access to public information.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in Marion Circuit Court claims that the Marion County Board of Voter Registration illegally denied the candidates access to public information in its voter registration base. The plaintiffs also allege that the Election Board violated the public record laws by not adopting a policy that would allow them access to the information.

The plaintiffs are Greg Bowes, the former Marion County assessor who is a Democratic candidate for Superior Court judge; Marion Superior judge candidates Mark King, a Democrat, and Paul Ogden, a Republican; and Zach Mulholland and Brian Cooper, both Democrats running for the Indiana House.

Bowes’ campaign issued a press release Thursday morning announcing the lawsuit. He, along with King and Ogden, are running against the slated candidates in Marion County – the candidates endorsed by the local Democratic and Republican parties.

According to the release, the plaintiffs believe the two county boards are “doing the bidding of the party county chairmen in violation of the law. The board members are paid with tax dollars, but serve at the pleasure of the county chairmen.”

In January, Ogden sent a letter to the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission arguing that the Marion County judicial candidate fees are required “slating fees” that the commission prohibited in a 1992 advisory opinion. Both political parties ask for thousands of dollars from their judicial candidates – anywhere from $12,000 to $13,500 –but party chairman contend that the fees aren’t mandatory and are strictly designed to help cover costs.

In Marion County, Republican and Democratic candidates get the same number of judicial candidate ballot spots. Parties hold slating conventions where they endorse who will appear on the ballot and each party collects money from those candidates to pay for the election costs. If someone isn’t slated and decides not to run against the slated candidates, that person receives an 80 percent refund.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT