ILNews

Justices asked to take Terre Haute mayor case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to consider the role a federal law plays in deciding who is Terre Haute's current mayor and whether a special election is needed.

In a rare but not unprecedented move, both the winning and losing sides in the ongoing appeal want the state's highest court to take the case, which presents an issue of first impression that will not only determine who is Terre Haute's mayor but also has statewide implications for future Hoosier elections.

The transfer petitions filed Friday and Monday in Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett, No. 84A01-0801-CV-2 follow a 2-1 decision on Nov. 12 from the Court of Appeals, which declared Terre Haute Mayor Duke Bennett was ineligible for that post because the federal Hatch Act had prevented him from being a candidate in 2007 or assuming office this year. The appellate court ordered a special election to resolve the dispute.

Burke and Duke Bennett have argued about this for more than a year. In November 2007, Bennett beat incumbent Burke for the mayor's job and the ousted mayor filed a challenge based on the federal law known as the Little Hatch Act, which limits political activity of employees of some non-profit groups that receive federal funding. Before taking office Jan. 1, Bennett was the operations director for Hamilton Center Inc., which receives federal funding for its Early Head Start program. Vigo Circuit-Superior Judge David Bolk ruled late last year that Bennett was subject to the Hatch Act, but that state law didn't prevent him from taking office; the appellate court didn't agree and paved the way for both parties to now seek final word from the Indiana Supreme Court.

On Friday, former mayor Burke's legal team - led by Indianapolis attorney Ed DeLaney of DeLaney & DeLaney - filed a transfer petition asking the court to reverse portions of the lower appellate court's decision vacating Bennett's win so that Burke would be declared the winner instead. Transfer should be granted because it asks for reconsideration of the high court's precedent, the petition says.

Specifically, the case asks the court to consider whether the Indiana Constitution prohibits the application of Indiana Code 3-12-8-17(c), which requires the court to certify as elected the qualified candidate who receives the most votes when the candidate who receives the highest overall number of votes is subsequently disqualified in a post-election contest.

Bennett's legal team - led by Terre Haute attorney Terry Modesitt and Bose McKinney & Evans attorneys Bryan Babb and George Patton of Indianapolis- filed its own transfer petition Monday, the final day to do so, also asking the justices to overturn portions of the ruling.

"The resulting rule of law (from the Court of Appeals decision) is incapable of fair, prospective application and creates unsound public policy for Hoosiers, who will be unnecessarily dissuaded from running for state and local political offices," Bennett's petition says. "This Court should chart Indiana a new course and adopt a fair and predictable standard that would limit the Election Contest Statute's reach to those employees at private non-profits and state agencies, who plan, develop, coordinate, or otherwise implement the federally-funded program."

The Bennett team argues that deciding not to take the case and leaving the Court of Appeals' ruling in place would go against caselaw. Both appellate courts have enforced Indiana's common law rule of constitutional dimension that an election loser can't succeed on a post-election contest if the alleged ineligibility was unknown to voters at election time.

A common request from both Burke and Bennett is for justices to vacate the Court of Appeals' determination that a special election be held. However, the team notes that if a new election is to be held, the Supreme Court must limit it to just those two candidates - Bennett had resigned from Hamilton Center following the original court challenge, so he's no longer subject to the Little Hatch Act at issue here and would be presumably be eligible to run.

Both sides now have 23 days to respond to the transfer petitions before the court considers whether to take the case.

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. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  2. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT