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

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