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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT