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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT