ILNews

COA voids Terre Haute's 2007 mayoral election

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man elected Terre Haute's mayor was ineligible because of federal law to become a candidate or assume office, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today on an issue of first impression. As a result, a special election is needed to fill the vacancy.

In a divided 2-1 decision in Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett, No. 84A01-0801-CV-2, the majority in a 59-page opinion reversed a lower court ruling that had held mayoral candidate Duke Bennett could take office as mayor despite the applicability of federal law questioning his eligibility.

In November 2007, Bennett beat incumbent Kevin Burke for mayor. Burke then challenged his newly elected opponent based on the Hatch Act, which limits political activity of employees of some non-profit groups that receive federal funding. Before taking office Jan. 1, Bennett was the operations director for Hamilton Center Inc., which receives federal funding for its Early Head Start program. The two have been battling over the mayoral post since late last year when Vigo Circuit Judge David Bolk ruled that Bennett is subject to the Hatch Act but that state law didn't prevent him from taking office.

A Court of Appeals majority of authoring Judge Elaine Brown and Judge Carr Darden disagreed, finding Bennett was subject to what's known as the Little Hatch Act because he was an "officer or employee" at the Hamilton Center and because his principal employment was in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by U.S. loans or grants. That meant that the applicability of that federal law disqualified Bennett from becoming a partisan candidate for mayor or assuming office, the court wrote.

"Because Burke has standing to contest the election and Bennett is ineligible, we conclude that a vacancy exists," she wrote. "In light of this conclusion, we direct the parties' attention to Ind. Code Sections 3-10-8, which govern special elections."

Judge Edward Najam dissented in his own 13-page opinion, writing that Indiana Supreme Court caselaw in Oviatt v. Behme, 238 Ind. 69, 147 N.E. 2d 897 (1958) is controlling and holds that an action can only be maintained under state statute if the losing candidate can demonstrate that voters knew of the winning candidate's ineligibility at the time of the election. That wasn't the case here and the trial court correctly ruled on that in favor of Bennett, Judge Najam wrote.

"The analytical flaw in the majority opinion is that it relies on Bennett's ineligibility rather than on the determination that, as a matter of law, Burke cannot prevail in his post-election contest," he wrote. "The majority is correct in holding that, given Oviatt, it is incumbent upon candidates to have issues of eligibility brought to the voters' attention prior to the election. But that is precisely why I am obliged to dissent from the majority opinion. In its operation and effect, the rule in Oviatt is akin to a rule of estoppel. The majority opinion nullifies the operation and effect of Oviatt."

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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT