ILNews

Judicial candidacy appeal moving quickly

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has refused to sidestep the state’s intermediate appellate court on a judicial election issue from Lake County, which involves a prospect for the bench being able to stay on the ballot.

Emergency requests with the state justices are being filed in the case of Michael Lambert v. William I Fine, No. 49A04-1009-PL00556, which stems from an Indiana Election Commission decision in early September that took Highland attorney and Lake Circuit candidate William Fine off the ballot for November’s general election. The four-member commission deadlocked and effectively found that the county Republican Party chair didn’t have the authority to appoint Fine as the Republican candidate for the Circuit seat opening at year’s end. That left voters with only one choice – Merrillville Town Judge George Paras who won the Democratic primary in May to replace retiring Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo.

A Marion County judge reversed that election commission decision on Sept. 13 and granted a temporary restraining order, and late last week issued a final order that stops the state from keeping Fine off the Nov. 2 ballot. Judge Keele noted that no basis in law exists to interpret state party rules in a way to override a statute and that the election commission doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to endorse state party rules, let alone at the expense of a statutory grant of power to a county chair.

Fine’s challenger Michael Lambert, a local town council member who argues that a party caucus should have been held to choose the Republican candidate, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals on Sept. 17. That same day he filed an emergency motion for the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction because of the public importance at issue.

Justices declined that initial request Tuesday, refusing to take the appeal away from the appellate court at this point. After Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele issued a final order on his earlier decision this month, Lambert filed a renewed motion for emergency jurisdiction under Appellate Rule 56(A) and that remained pending as of this morning. Fine’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss.

Timing is important in this appeal as absentee ballots were mailed in mid-September, and the decisions in this case impact what choices voters have in deciding who the next Lake Circuit judge will be.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT