ILNews

COA upholds dismissal of election challenges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today Indiana's appellate courts are dealing with two mayoral election disputes, with the Court of Appeals ruling on one in Muncie and the Supreme Court hearing arguments in another from Terre Haute.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Democratic candidate Jim Mansfield's challenges to Republican candidate Sharon McShurley being named Muncie mayor after a recount Dec. 20. Mansfield was declared the winner of the election until a recount filed by the Delaware County Republican Party led to the discovery of 19 invalid absentee ballots - with 18 votes being for Mansfield. The absentee ballots weren't recounted because they had been distributed to voters without the initials of a Republican member of the election board.

Mansfield brought his petition for election contest a week after the recount. The trial court dismissed it because it didn't have jurisdiction to hear it because it wasn't filed within the statutory 14-day time period after Election Day. The trial court also dismissed his Feb. 13, 2008, amended complaint in quo warranto.

In Jim Mansfield and state ex rel. Mansfield v. Sharon McShurley and Delaware County, Indiana Election Board, No. 18A02-0804-CV-375, the appellate court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the election contest and quo warranto complaint. Mansfield argued he couldn't have filed his election contest within the 14-day statutory limit because he didn't learn he wasn't the official winner until after the time limit had passed.

The Court of Appeals didn't find Arredondo v. Lake Circuit Court, 271 Ind. 176, 391 N.E. 2d 597 (Ind. 1979), and Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138, 1143 (Ind. 2004), applicable to the instant case because they dealt with the question of whether a trial court's failure to hold a hearing within the time prescribed by statute divested it of jurisdiction it had already acquired. The cases didn't establish exceptions to the 14-day jurisdictional requirement in the election contest statute, wrote Judge Melissa May.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the "unusual result" the application of the statutory time limit causes, but the availability of quo warranto gives a challenger a day in court even if a recount changes the result.

Mansfield conceded the disputed absentee ballots couldn't be counted in the recount, but alleged the ballots were still legal because they were legitimate ballots made invalid by the election officials' mistake. They shouldn't be considered fraudulent like those addressed in Pabey and a special election should occur because several voters were disenfranchised by the mistake.

But the Court of Appeals ruled the trial court didn't err in dismissing Mansfield's complaint on the ground the recount commission did nothing unlawful when it declined to count certain ballots. It also ruled McShurley wasn't entitled to attorneys' fees because Mansfield's complaint and appeal weren't frivolous.

Mansfield's attorney William Groth was disappointed by the opinion because he believed there are substantial legal issues of first impression that would be interesting to take up on transfer, he said in an e-mail to Indiana Lawyer Daily. The issue is whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Pabey, which held courts retain jurisdiction to order a special election when a candidate doesn't meet the statutory time limits through no fault of his own, should be extended to the facts of the instant case. Another issue is whether the ballots cast by the absentee voters were "distributed by mistake" within the meaning of Indiana Code Section 3-12-8-2 such that a special election should have been ordered, he said. The final issue is whether the application of the Indiana Election Code, by providing a right and remedy to the initially certified loser but not to the winner, violates the Open Courts and Privileges and Immunities clauses of the Indiana Constitution.

"The unfortunate ultimate result is that 19 blameless voters remain disenfranchised, and that disenfranchisement not only affected them, it changed the outcome of the election," he said.

Groth wasn't sure if his client will consider appealing to the Supreme Court.

The high court heard arguments this morning in Duke Bennett v. Kevin D. Burke, No. 84S01-0904-CV-148, in which Kevin Burke is challenging whether Duke Bennett could have been elected mayor of Terre Haute because he worked for a nonprofit that received federal funds right before he ran for mayor.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT