ILNews

Delayed COA appeal declared moot

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by an election board and political candidates who challenged a candidate's ability to run as an Independent because the candidate had already lost in the election when the appeal finally made it before the appellate court.

The appeal, Lake County Board of Elections and Registrations, Myrna Maldonado, Richard Medina, and Juda Parks v. Anthony Copeland, No. 45A04-0710-CV-560, came before the Court of Appeals after the November 2007 election because of an error in the clerk's office, which rendered the appeal moot.

Incumbent Anthony Copeland wanted to run as an Independent for an at-large seat on East Chicago's Common Council. He was originally elected to that seat in 2003 as a Democrat and at the time of filing his paperwork to run as an Independent, he was still the chairman of the East Chicago Democratic Committee.

Myrna Maldonado, Richard Medina, and Juda Parks (challengers) were also running for council seats and opposed Copeland's running as an Independent. They alleged under Indiana law, Copeland was not allowed to run as an Independent while still affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The Election Board voted to remove Copeland's name from the Nov. 6, 2007, ballot. An emergency hearing was set in September 2007, in which the trial court ruled there was no evidence presented by the challengers that would disqualify Copeland from running as an Independent. The court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the Election Board to reinstate Copeland as a candidate. The challengers tried to have the Indiana Supreme Court accept the case, but the court denied the appeal.

The Court of Appeals in mid-October 2007 issued an order granting the challengers' motion to consolidate and motion to expedite. Their brief was due Oct. 18, 2007; Copeland's was due Oct. 24, 2007.

For reasons unknown to the court, the case wasn't transmitted to the appellate court until January 2008, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The clerk of the courts online docket shows both sets of briefs were submitted either before or on their due dates; however, the appellant brief was filestamped Oct. 24, 2007, and Copeland's brief didn't initially have a stamp. It was later back-filestamped to Oct. 24, 2007.

Because of error on the part of both parties in filing, the clerk's office could not filestamp the briefs until they were complete, wrote Supreme Court Administrator and Clerk of the Appellate Courts and Tax Courts Kevin Smith in an e-mail to Indiana Lawyer. The challengers submitted the brief without a copy of the appealed judgment; they fixed the defect on Oct. 24, 2007, which is when it was filestamped. Copeland left out a copy of a page of his brief and failed to attach a proper certificate of service to show he served the challengers with the missing page, so his appeal was not filed.

"The following day, (Copeland) tendered an additional nine copies of the page missing from his brief, along with an updated certificate of service; however, the updated certificate of service was also insufficient to show that he had served the Appellants with the missing page. Accordingly, again his brief was not filed. At that point, we should have discussed with the Court of Appeals what it wanted for us to do. We failed to do so, however, and that was our fault," wrote Smith.

The reason the case continued to be delayed was human error and a flaw in the case management's calendaring, so the case was not transmitted to the Court of Appeals as it should have been, according to Smith. Copeland's brief was not filestamped with the date Oct. 24, 2007, until staff from the writing judge's chambers in January 2008 inquired on the case; his brief remained incomplete at that time.

"Thereafter, we investigated the causes that led to our oversight and uncovered the holes in our various systems that created the ability for this to happen. We immediately took steps to plug those holes," Smith wrote.

Smith wrote that even though those holes are now plugged, if a case does fall through an unforeseen crack in the system, counsel is encouraged to contact the clerk, deputy clerk, or Administration Office of the Court to find out if the case has been transmitted.

Because the case, which was supposed to be expedited, didn't appear before the appellate court until after the election, the appeal is rendered moot, wrote Judge Vaidik. Copeland was on the ballot and lost the election. Also, the appellate court chose to not rule on the case because even if the issues in the appeal are of great public importance, they are unlikely to recur.
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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT