ILNews

Court consolidates Lake County voter cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has stepped in to settle conflicting rulings from two Lake County courts regarding early-voting sites in East Chicago, Gary, and Hammond, deciding that consolidating the cases to proceed in Lake Superior Court is the "most orderly approach."

In the order State of Indiana ex rel., John B. Curley, et al. v. The Lake Circuit Court and Hon. Lorenzo Arredondo, as judge thereof, No. 45S00-0810-OR-555, issued late Tuesday evening, the majority noted that normally such actions are viewed with disfavor and the court doesn't grant writs of mandamus and prohibition when there is an adequate remedy through the appellate process; however, it noted the conflict in this case between the Circuit and Superior courts' decisions warrants the high court's attention.

Realtors John B. Curley, as chairman of the Lake County Republican Committee, and Jim B. Brown, as a member of the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, filed an action Oct. 2 in Lake Superior Court against the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration and Judge Thomas Philpot, not individually but as the Lake County Clerk. On Oct. 6, the United Steelworkers District 7; Hammond Teachers Federation Local 394, American Federation of Teachers; Earline Rogers; and Roxanna Luco filed an action in Lake Circuit Court against the Board of Elections and Registration.

The board removed the Superior Court case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana; while the case was pending before the District Court, the Superior Court entered a temporary restraining order directing the board not to open early-voting sites in Lake County. The Circuit Court entered a temporary restraining order three days later directing the board to open early the voting sites.

The plaintiffs in the Superior Court case filed the original action contesting the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over the similar lawsuit.

Citing Indiana Trial Rule 42(D), Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justices Brent Dickson, Frank Sullivan, and Theodore Boehm ruled that the Circuit Court case should be consolidated with the Superior Court case, with both matters proceeding before the Superior Court on a consolidated basis. The majority upheld the preliminary injunction entered by the Circuit Court Oct. 14 directing the board to open early-voting sites, and instructed the parties to exercise any right to a change of judge.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented from the majority's decision, writing he would deny the requested issuance of the writ and allow the Circuit Court's restraining order to stand. Curley and Brown, who sought this order, didn't request or mention that they wanted the cases consolidated. In their petition, the only relief they requested was to have the Circuit Court lawsuit dismissed, wrote Justice Rucker.

Justice Boehm concurred in result with the majority in a separate opinion, but agreed with Justice Rucker that ordinarily this type of writ would be denied because dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(8) is not mandatory. However, because the conflicting rulings between the courts causes uncertainty for voters as to whether they can vote before Election Day, he concurs with consolidating the cases in order to expedite the resolution.

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