Justices put school board member back on Hammond mayoral ballot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court late Thursday reversed a decision from a Lake Superior judge and put a nonpartisan school board member back on the ballot for the Hammond mayoral run in the upcoming primary election.

An emergency transfer decision file-stamped at 4:10 p.m. came in George T. Janiec v. Lake County Board of Election and Registration, No. 45S00-1104-MI-228, with the justices unanimously ruling that the county election board is enjoined from keeping Janiec’s name off the ballot. Any absentee or early ballots cast by 4 p.m. April 21 remain valid, and the rest of the ruling details how the remaining votes should be handled.

Local voting machines must be reprogrammed to include Janiec’s name for the May 3 primary voting, and the parties must “immediately agree on a mechanism” for absentee and early voters who’ve received but not yet turned in ballots without his name to have the option to vote for Janiec if they choose.

This changes how the county had been handling the issue after an election board decision in early March set this all in motion.

The Democratic members of the Lake County election board removed Janiec from the ballot, finding that state statute prevents local school board members from political campaigning and saying that Janiec can only run for mayor if he first resigned from the nonpartisan school board. Janiec refused and appealed in court, and Judge Jesse Villalpando on March 30 declined to overturn the election board’s decision.

Judge Villalpando ruled that the election board acted consistently with legislative authority and local school board ethics policy disallowing this practice, despite the fact that two other school board members in Lake County are currently running for city council seats and it’s been done in the past in a state Senate race.

Attorneys for Janiec immediately appealed and asked the Supreme Court to grant emergency transfer because of the approaching election and early voting that began April 4.

“The Court finds no basis in statute or law for disqualifying Janiec on this basis,” the justices' per curiam decision says, citing its 2009 decision in Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529, 532, that impacted the Terre Haute mayoral race and held the disqualification statute must be construed in harmony with the longstanding policy on giving people the right to have free and equal elections.

Highland attorney William Fine, who is representing Janiec, said this court ruling reaffirms settled law and practice within the state of Indiana. He didn’t immediately know how many ballots would remain valid without Janiec’s name, or whether that issue could resurface down the road following the primary election. Janiec had run against Democratic incumbent Tom McDermott in 2007 and lost by less than 500 votes.

A 12 p.m. Monday deadline is set for the parties to agree on a way to handle the remaining votes on already distributed ballots, and the court will then resolve any remaining disputes.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.