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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT