ILNews

Candidate on ballot as appeal proceeds

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Indiana Supreme Court has refused to sidestep the state’s intermediate appellate court on a judicial-election issue from Lake County, while the lower appeals court decided not to grant an expedited-hearing request despite the pending election.

At IL deadline, Lake Circuit judicial prospect William I. Fine, an attorney in Highland, remained on the ballot after the justices turned down two emergency requests to intervene and the COA declined to rush briefing before the Nov. 2 general election that could put Fine on the bench.

The case is Michael Lambert v. William I Fine, No. 49A04-1009-PL556, which stems from an Indiana Election Commission decision in early September that took Fine off the ballot. That left voters with only one choice – Merrillville Town Judge George Paras, who won the Democratic primary in May to replace retiring Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo.

A Marion County judge reversed that decision Sept. 13 and granted a temporary restraining order that stopped the state from keeping Fine off the Nov. 2 ballot. Judge Michael Keele noted that no basis in law exists to interpret state party rules in a way to override a statute and that the commission doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to endorse state party rules, let alone at the expense of a statutory grant of power to a county chair.

Fine’s challenger Michael Lambert, a Winfield town council member who argues that a party caucus should have been held to choose the Republican candidate, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals Sept. 17. That same day he filed an emergency motion for the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction because of the public importance at issue.

Justices declined those requests, refusing to take the appeal away from the appellate court at this point. The Court of Appeals then declined the expedited request, and denied Fine’s motion to dismiss.
 

Rehearing "Candidacy issues?" IL Sept. 15-28, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT