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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT