ILNews

Judge allows Charlie White to remain in office pending appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Recognizing the judiciary has the ability to minimize damage caused by the ongoing Indiana secretary of state court challenge, a Marion Circuit judge has put a hold on his ruling that the state’s top election official be immediately removed from office and a successor appointed.

Instead, Judge Lou Rosenberg ruled Wednesday that Secretary of State Charlie White can remain in office while the Indiana appellate court hears his case.

The two-page order follows Rosenberg’s Dec. 22 decision ruling White ineligible to be a candidate for the state office in the November 2010 election because he allegedly committed voter fraud. An appeal is in the works, and most believe the case is on a fast track to the Indiana Supreme Court. Rosenberg is allowing White to remain in office until the appellate courts can consider the issues.

State Democrats called for an investigation into White two months before the 2010 general election after discovering he voted in the Republican spring primary while registered to vote at his ex-wife's house in Fishers. After the three-member Recount Commission in June 2011 allowed White to keep his job, the Democrats appealed in court and Rosenberg determined the record shows White wasn’t residing at the home he listed for voting as is statutorily required.

Just before Christmas, White and the commission asked Rosenberg to stay his ruling pending appeal. In making his decision, Rosenberg considered the public harm that could result by each of the potential decisions – to grant the stay and have the ruling upheld on appeal, to grant the stay and be reversed, and to deny the stay and be reversed.

The judge pointed out that no harm would result from granting the stay if the decision is reversed, but the other two options presented concerns.

“If the Court grants the stay and its decision is upheld, there will be irreparable harm to the public measured by the delay in implementing the trial court’s decision,” he wrote. “The appellate court’s may, however, expedite the consideration of an appeal. Thus, whatever harm may result from a granting of the stay can be minimized by the appellate courts.”

He continued, “If the court denies the stay and its decision is reversed, however, the negative consequences would be great and irreparable. If White were removed pursuant to this Court’s Judgment and then reinstated as a result of reversal on appeal, key personnel currently serving under Mr. White might become unavailable in the interim. Important decisions might be twice reversed causing confusion on many important issues. The denial of a stay together with a subsequent reversal would unnecessarily weaken the performance of the Secretary of State regarding many critical functions, not the least of which is oversight of the forthcoming general election.”

Noting that turmoil might be unavoidable if White is convicted in a separate criminal voter fraud case ongoing in Hamilton County, Rosenberg wrote that controversy could result in how White’s successor is chosen. He previously ruled that Democrat Vop Osili, the candidate receiving the second-highest number of votes in 2010, should be appointed. But he has now declined to intervene on that question.

The Indiana attorney general’s office plans to appeal Rosenberg’s ruling on behalf of the Recount Commission, while separately White’s private counsel has filed notice of appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT