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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT