ILNews

High court asked to intervene in recount

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to toss out a trial judge's order for a Terre Haute mayoral race recount because the petitioner failed to include the winner's middle initial.

Attorney James Bopp Jr. with Terre Haute law firm Bopp Coleson & Bostrom filed an emergency request Thursday afternoon for the justices to intervene in the recount challenge, contending that Vigo Circuit Judge David Bolk didn't have jurisdiction to order a recount from the Nov. 6 election. Democratic Mayor Kevin Burke asked for a recount shortly after losing by 107 votes to Republican Duke Bennett.

But Bopp argues that Judge Bolk, who serves as both a Circuit and Superior judge, didn't have jurisdiction because of the variance in Bennett's name as it appeared in court papers and on the ballot. On the ballot, his full name with middle initial "A" is listed, while the challenge petition did not list that initial.

Therefore, the court can't rule on the recount, Bopp's brief says.

Earlier this week, Judge Bolk denied motions to dismiss recount and election challenge petitions on the name variance grounds, leading to the Supreme Court filing.

"While such an error might seem trivial, it was significant enough of a distinction to the legislature to amend recount of election requirements to specifically require a candidate's name as written on the ballot in a recount proceeding," the brief states, "and is likewise enough of an omission to divest (Vigo Circuit Court and Judge Bolk) of jurisdiction."

Bopp cites three Indiana Supreme Court cases as authority that specific names must be included and mirror the ballot: State ex Rel Young v. Noble Circuit Court, 332 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1975); Marra v. Clapp, 262 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 1970); and State v. Lake Circuit Court, 121 N.E.2d 647, 649 (Ind. 1954).

This recount petition suffers a similar, fatal flaw as those cases, Bopp contends in his brief, and Burke's doesn't meet state law requirements.

Denying this petition would create extreme hardship for the newly-elected mayor by being "unnecessarily delayed" in taking the position and subject him to further scrutiny beyond the judicial jurisdictional scope, Bopp's brief states.

A trial has been scheduled for Dec. 17 on the recount challenges, according to the local court calendar, but that may not happen depending on action from the state's high court.
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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT