ILNews

High court denies rehearing in secretary of state eligibility suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT