Pre-election appeals

November 3, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Election Day is less than 24 hours away, but that isn’t stopping the litigation and court filings. An emergency appeal is happening with the Indianapolis ruling that came from Marion Circuit Judge Ted Sosin late Friday, which ordered that the local election board follow state statute relating to challenged, mail-in absentee ballots. Indianapolis attorney Robbin Stewart also has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today to weigh in on his request to stop the state from enforcing the photo identification requirement on Election Day.

But not everyone is asking for appellate aid. There isn’t any new appellate action in the Lake County early voting case, which drew a significant ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals late Friday. That decision kept the early voting sites open on an issue of first impression, and pointed out ambiguity in state statute. The appellate ruling affirms the trial court decision. A staff member for Special Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider said at 11 a.m. today that no further proceedings were scheduled and none would happen unless specifically requested.

A footnote from appellate author Judge Edward Najam notes in declining to order an entry of final judgment, “We believe the better course is for the parties to present their arguments to the trial court and for the trial court to enter its final judgment interpreting the relevant statutes.”

Appellate attorney Timothy Sendak in Crown Point says there’s no rush, given that early voting ends today and no ruling will likely affect that. “The next step legally is still being weighed, but let me go this far and say that we don’t think the (Court of Appeals) ruling is stare decisis.”

If that’s the case, it’s interesting that something that seems to be an appellate lawyer’s dream – first impression, ambiguity, and a pressing issue of public importance – wouldn’t be taken to a higher level. Maybe that’s what is being decided behind the scenes – that this could go from an early voting case to a post-election challenge depending on who wins.
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
  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