ILNews

High court denies rehearing in secretary of state eligibility suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will continue to stay out of the suit involving Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White and whether he was eligible to run for office.

The justices denied White’s petition for rehearing Thursday in Charlie White, et al. v. Indiana Democratic Party, No. 49S02-1105-MI-291. They denied his motion to stay May 20 after granting emergency transfer under Indiana Appellate Rule 56(A) and dismissed the appeal.

The Indiana Recount Commission is investigating whether White was eligible to run for Indiana Secretary of State because he registered using a false home address during his campaign. Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg ordered commission members to hear a challenge from Democrats on White’s eligibility. There is an evidentiary hearing for the election contest scheduled June 21 and the commission has a self-imposed June 30 deadline for deciding the matter. The Indiana Recount Commission recently decided that the June 21 hearing will be streamed online and TV cameras will be allowed. White argued against allowing TV cameras in the hearing.

White also has criminal charges pending in Hamilton County, including felony voter fraud charges, and is scheduled to go to trial in August. He wanted the Supreme Court to stay the recount matter until the criminal case is resolved because he argued the voter fraud question is what is at issue in both matters. If White is convicted of a felony, he would not be able to hold office. He could also be removed from office if the commission determines he wasn’t legally registered and able to be on the ballot.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT