ILNews

High court asked to intervene in recount

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

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