ILNews

Appeal planned on judge's order to remove secretary of state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg ruled Wednesday that Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was ineligible to be a candidate for the state office in the November 2010 election because he allegedly committed voter fraud. Now, an appeal is being planned and many believe the case is on a fast-track to the state’s highest court.

Indiana Democrats called for an investigation two months before the 2010 general election after discovering White, a Republican, voted in the May 2010 primary while registered to vote at his ex-wife's house in Fishers.

In June 2011, the three-member Indiana Recount Commission voted unanimously to let White keep his job. The state Democratic Party appealed that decision in court and Rosenberg found the record shows White wasn’t residing at the home he listed for voting as is statutorily required.

“The fact that Mr. White knowingly registered in the wrong precinct is sufficient to render him ineligible for the office of Secretary of State,” Rosenberg wrote, remanding the case to the Indiana Recount Commission.

Rosenberg ordered the commission to remove White from office and appoint Democrat Vop Osili, who was the second-highest vote getter in 2010. State statute at the time of the election puts him in the position, although Osili has since been elected to the City of Indianapolis and Marion County City-County Council and expects to take office Jan. 1.

Recount Commission spokesman AJ Feeney-Ruiz said White remains secretary of state for the time being and that the commission wouldn’t be able to take up Rosenberg's ruling before late next week because of the holiday, uncertainty about the commission’s membership and 48-hour notice requirements.

"The secretary of state is still the secretary of state and will continue to do his work as secretary of state as this process plays out," Feeney-Ruiz said.

White’s counsel, Jonathan Sturgill, filed an emergency motion to stay on Friday, and Rosenberg has stayed the removal order until a hearing Jan 3.

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General represents the Recount Commission, and spokesman Bryan Corbin said the state agency will seek appellate review.

“One obligation of our office is to represent state government boards such as the Indiana Recount Commission in lawsuits, and when a board’s unanimous administrative decision is overturned by a court, the order should be reviewed by a higher court,” he said. “We will seek a stay of the court’s ruling and are in communication with our client, the Recount Commission, to discuss the process of an appeal.”

Indianapolis attorney Tom Wheeler, who temporarily chaired the Recount Commission after White was statutorily precluded from that role, expects the judge’s ruling will be immediately appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Wheeler isn’t sure whether he retains the Recount Commission chair and has asked the AG for a formal legal opinion on his status. Indiana Republican Party Chair Eric Holcomb appointed Wheeler as chairman under Indiana Code 3-12-10-2.1(e) temporarily, but the commission issued a final determination in the White matter on June 28 and it is unclear whether Wheeler remains chairman or the secretary of state has resumed that position.

This civil action is separate from the ongoing criminal case in Hamilton County, where a grand jury indicted White on voter fraud and other charges in March. White had been trying to postpone the civil recount matter until after the criminal case was completed, but those efforts failed. Most recently, Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation refused a motion to dismiss the criminal case and it is scheduled to go to trial Jan. 30. Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi is representing White on the criminal charges and has said publicly that the civil office-holding case would not impact the criminal voter fraud case.

Indianapolis attorney Bill Groth with Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, representing the Democrat Party in the Recount Commission matter, said the next step is not known and it is premature to make any predictions.

He referred to the Indiana General Assembly’s change in state law in early 2011, which revised statute to give the governor appointment power to choose a secretary of state successor in this type of removal situation. The change came as a result of the White matter, and legislators made the move to apply to future situations after some concerns arose about making the revision retroactive to apply to the White-Osili matter. But a question could arise about which version of the statute applies now, Groth said.

“We’re really in unchartered territory here. I certainly don't want to prejudge the outcome of the criminal case, but were a guilty verdict to result, there could be a colossal legal battle over whether Vop Osili or a gubernatorial appointee would be entitled to assume the vacant office. In that eventuality and also assuming the Supreme Court did not reverse, we will be vigorously contending Osili has the superior claim to the office,” Groth added.



 

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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT