ILNews

Judge upholds New Castle mayor's election

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A special judge in Henry County has dismissed a challenge to the New Castle mayor’s election, finding that mayor-elect Greg York is able to become the city’s top executive because he didn’t violate the state’s residency requirement by keeping two homes and splitting where he spent his time.

In a decision Monday, Special Judge Linda Ralu Wolf in Henry Circuit Court upheld York’s election on Nov. 8 and found he can take office at the start of the year. The ruling came about a week after Wolf, a Delaware County judge, heard arguments as to whether York met residency requirements to be mayor because he owned a home just outside the city limits and split his time between that residence and a longtime home on 11th Street inside New Castle.

York obtained 75 percent of the general election vote, securing 2,655 votes compared to the 628 received by John Mark Nipp and 226 received by Debra Baker. Nipp chose to contest the results, arguing that York isn't a city resident and doesn't meet requirements to be mayor.

 But the special judge found that Nipp and his attorney, Jeffrey Bell, fell “far short” of meeting the burden of proof to demonstrate York isn’t an eligible city resident. She rejected the idea that voters had “thrown away” their votes by casting a ballot for York on Election Day.

"A more plausible inference from York's overwhelming electoral success is that the voters, having heard the evidence of York's residency in New Castle and the arguments over it, decided that the evidence of York's intent and conduct and his long and deep connections to the community showed that he was a lawful resident of New Castle and eligible to serve as their mayor," Wolf wrote.

Nothing in state law prohibits a person from owning more than one home and having to abandon another residence when they seek public office, she wrote. Evidence shows that York continued paying property taxes, voted using that address, and kept personal belongings at that 11th St. home.

This is one of many election-related challenges that have surfaced statewide in the past year focusing on Indiana’s residency requirement. That has been an issue in the court challenges involving Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White, who faces criminal charges relating to his voter registration at an address where he allegedly didn’t reside. Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation on Monday declined to dismiss the criminal case against White, and it continues along with the civil suit challenging White’s ability to hold office as a result of his voter registration information.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT