ILNews

Expedited hearing to be sought after justices again deny transfer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The attorney for a man challenging the inclusion of a Lake County judicial prospect’s name on the general election ballot will seek an expedited hearing with the Indiana Court of Appeals after justices Wednesday denied a second emergency request for transfer.

Michael W. Back of Crown Point told Indiana Lawyer this morning he plans to file for the expedited hearing with the appeals court on behalf of his client, Michael J. Lambert. A Republican and Winfield Town Council member, Lambert is challenging the candidacy of Highland attorney William I. Fine because Lake County Republican Party chairman Kim Krull named Fine the party’s candidate for Lake Circuit Court. Judge Lorenzo Arredondo decided not to seek re-election and leaves the bench at the end of this year.

“The Republican County chair exceeded her authority,” said Back, who added that his client wants only for the state Republican Party rules to be followed, meaning that the party would have conducted a caucus to determine the candidate.

No one from the Republican Party ran in the primary. Merrillville Town Judge George Paras won the Democratic primary.

Time is of the essence because of the Nov. 2 election, Back acknowledged. He also recognized that if they succeed in essentially having Fine’s candidacy nullified, that Lake County voters will have only one choice.  

“If he, Mr. Fine, really had an interest in this office, he should have run in the primary,” said Back.

After Fine was put on the ballot in late May, Lambert filed a challenge, which led to the Indiana Election Commission’s deadlocked vote of 2-2, meaning Fine “lost,” Back said. Then, Fine filed in Marion Superior Court to challenge the jurisdiction of the state election board.

That’s nonsense, said Back, adding,  “That’s their job. I just find that a very interesting twist.”

“From our perspective, it’s critical – especially in Lake County – that the election process is properly followed,” said Back. “If it’s not, it taints the election.”

The Indiana Supreme Court twice this week denied motions to accept jurisdiction over Michael J. Lambert v. William I. Fine, No. 49A04-1009-PL-00556. On Sept. 17, the appellants filed an emergency Appellate Rule 56(A) motion for the high court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal from Marion Superior Court. The Supreme Court denied that motion Tuesday, noting the appellate jurisdiction remains with the Indiana Court of Appeals. Lambert filed a renewed emergency Appellate Rule 56(A) motion that same day, and the justices denied the request Wednesday afternoon.

Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele had reversed the election commission decision Sept. 13 and granted a temporary restraining order and late last week issued a final order that stops the state from keeping Fine off the ballot. Judge Keele noted that no basis in law exists to interpret state party rules in a way to override a statute and that the election commission doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to endorse state party rules, let alone at the expense of a statutory grant of power to a county chair.

There has been no ruling on Fine’s motion to dismiss.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT