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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT