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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT