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. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT