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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT