ILNews

COA: Candidate remains on ballot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Republican winner of the primary election for Indiana House of Representatives District 74 will remain on the ballot for the general election, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Charles R. Wyatt challenged Republican candidate Susan Ellspermann’s declaration of candidacy for the primary election. In her declaration, she certified she’s affiliated with the Republican Party because she voted as a Republican in the most recent prior primary election, but she had actually voted as a Democrat in the 2008 election.  

After discovering her vote, she filed an amended declaration. Ellspermann’s motion to reconsider failed as well as Wyatt’s challenge to her candidacy because votes on those motions split 2 to 2. By Indiana Election Commission rules, she remained on the ballot and beat her challenger, Angela Sowers.

Before the election, Wyatt filed suit in Marion Superior Court, but the court didn’t rule before the election. It denied his request for a preliminary injunction and denied both parties’ motions for sanctions. Wyatt appealed the denial of his request for injunctive and declaratory relief; Ellspermann appealed the denial of her request for attorney’s fees.  

Wyatt failed to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the public interest would not be disserved by granting the preliminary injunction, wrote Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan. He noted if the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Wyatt, it would nullify the primary election results.

Caselaw has held that the purpose of election law and the courts are to secure voters an opportunity to freely and fairly cast ballots and prevent disenfranchisement. The statute at issue in this case doesn’t provide that compliance with its provisions is essential to a valid election. Ellspermann testified that she had forgotten she had voted as a Democrat in the 2008 primary and she historically had voted Republican. Wyatt didn’t submit any evidence to counter her explanation.

“Under these circumstances, the irregularity in Ellspermann’s declaration and any misconstruction of Indiana Code section 3-8-2-7 by the IEC or the Marion Superior Court cannot justify reversal of the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction because it would contradict the will of the electorate and disenfranchise voters,” wrote Judge Sullivan in Charles R. Wyatt, et al. v. Thomas E. Wheeler, et al., No. 49A02-1006-PL-636.

The judges also found even if the per se rule applied to this case, which it does not, it wouldn’t provide grounds for reversal because Wyatt would still have to show that the issuance of the injunction wouldn’t be contrary to the public interest. They also affirmed the denial of declaratory relief because if they rule that the IEC and Marion Superior Court had misapplied the relevant statutes, then Ellspermann’s victory would be invalid. That outcome would violate the purpose of election laws, wrote Judge Sullivan.

The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Ellspermann’s request for attorney’s fees and denied her request for appellate attorney’s fees.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT