ILNews

Dead candidates remain on primary ballot

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals examined state statutes to determine which apply when a candidate dies before the primary but wins the election, an issue the court hadn't tackled before.

In Dan Lockard v. Charles Miles and John Mullican, No. 84A04-0708-CV-493, Lockard challenged his loss to Charles Miles in the Terre Haute Democratic primary. Miles died April 18, 2007, nearly three weeks before the May 8 primary, and media in Terre Haute first reported his death April 19. Lockard and Miles were the only two candidates on the ballot for the Democratic Party primary for City Council District 6 seat.

After the election and pursuant to Indiana Code Section 3-13-1-8, the Vigo County Democratic chairman filed a notice of party caucus to fill a candidate vacancy because Miles couldn't run in the main election. At the caucus, John Mullican was chosen over three other candidates - including Lockard - to be the democratic nominee for the seat.

Lockard had filed a verified petition for an election contest, arguing that because Miles died, he didn't meet the residency requirements to run for office.

A special judge appointed to the case denied Lockard's petition, finding the issue wasn't whether Miles met the residency requirements but rather that proper statutory procedure following the death of a candidate before a primary election was followed.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judge's decision to deny Lockard's petition, citing this is an issue of first impression.

The Court of Appeals rejected Lockard's argument that Miles failed to meet the residency requirements under I.C. 3-8-1-27 so Lockard should have been declared the winner. Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote there are more specific state statutes - instead of the residency requirement statute - that address what happens when a candidate dies as opposed to becoming ineligible for office.

The statute on early candidate vacancies applies to Miles because he died more than 30 days before the general election. This statute states in I.C. 3-13-1-2, "A candidate vacancy that exists on a primary election ballot may not be filled for the primary election." Candidates' names may be removed from the general election ballot but not the primary ballot, wrote Judge Vaidik.

Because Miles' name could not be removed from the ballot, his name properly remained on the ballot. Voters who knew of his death still elected him into office, perhaps a testament that voters did not want Lockard to win, she wrote. Because Miles won, a caucus was triggered under Indiana statute, in which Mullican was elected as the general election democratic candidate.

"Because Lockard was defeated in the primary election and filed a declaration of candidacy for nomination by a caucus, and was defeated, Lockard was not eligible to become a candidate for City County District 6 in the 2007 general election," she wrote.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT