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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT