ILNews

Judges don't agree candidate is 'qualified'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether an elected at-large school board candidate was "qualified" under the Indiana Constitution to take office because his election caused three members from the same school district to be on the board. The majority ruled in favor of the candidate and another winner, ruling the portion of the statute that says the person who wins the greatest number of votes wins the position controls despite conflicting subsections.

In Clarke C. Campbell v. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County Election Board, et al., No. 49A02-0808-CV-681, Clarke Campbell appealed the trial court ruling that the individuals who received the highest number of votes for the two at-large seats on the Indianapolis Public Schools Board should be seated despite statute saying no more than two board members may reside in the same district. Winners Michael Cohen and Elizabeth Gore caused three members to be seated from the same district.

The Board of School Commissioners for IPS originally filed the complaint following the May 2008 election seeking an interpretation of Indiana Code Section 20-25-3-4. Gore ran for Campbell's incumbent at-large seat and won. Cohen won the "open" at-large election; the vacancy was the result of a resignation from another at-large board member before his term was up.

At the time Cohen and Gore ran, they were qualified to run and both lived in IPS District 3; there was already a board member representing District 3. This violated subsection (b) of the statute that states no more than two members who serve on the board may reside in the same board district. The statute also says in subsection (e) that a candidate who runs for an at-large position wins if he or she gets the greatest number of votes of all the candidates for the position.

The election brings up a situation in which it is impossible to adhere to both subsections, wrote Judge Paul Mathias, and the statute provides no guidance for the "rare, but potentially recurring circumstance in this case where a mid-term resignation by an at-large Board member caused both at-large seats to be vacant in the same election cycle."

The majority agreed with the trial court that subsection C(e) should control, which is later in position in the statute. It noted its conclusion is consistent with the governing rule in Indiana to uphold the will of the electorate.

The majority and Judge L. Mark Bailey disagreed as to whether Gore and Cohen were elected and qualified under Article 15, Section 3 of the Indiana Constitution. The majority concluded that "qualified" referred to actions the elected successor must take after the election to qualify for office, such as taking an oath of office. Judge Bailey believed Cohen wasn't qualified to hold an at-large position because when Gore defeated Campbell, Cohen was statutorily disqualified to hold office because he was the third person residing in the district elected to the school board. He also remained disqualified at the time he took office. In accordance with subsection (h) of the statute, Judge Bailey wrote Leroy Robinson, who held the office before Cohen was elected, should retain the position until another person is elected and qualified. The judge noted that because the "open" at-large position caused the current problem, his solution only affects that position.

The majority also urged the General Assembly to consider the circumstances of the appeal and formulate a statutory remedy should similar circumstances appear in a future election.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT