ILNews

Justices put school board member back on Hammond mayoral ballot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court late Thursday reversed a decision from a Lake Superior judge and put a nonpartisan school board member back on the ballot for the Hammond mayoral run in the upcoming primary election.

An emergency transfer decision file-stamped at 4:10 p.m. came in George T. Janiec v. Lake County Board of Election and Registration, No. 45S00-1104-MI-228, with the justices unanimously ruling that the county election board is enjoined from keeping Janiec’s name off the ballot. Any absentee or early ballots cast by 4 p.m. April 21 remain valid, and the rest of the ruling details how the remaining votes should be handled.

Local voting machines must be reprogrammed to include Janiec’s name for the May 3 primary voting, and the parties must “immediately agree on a mechanism” for absentee and early voters who’ve received but not yet turned in ballots without his name to have the option to vote for Janiec if they choose.

This changes how the county had been handling the issue after an election board decision in early March set this all in motion.

The Democratic members of the Lake County election board removed Janiec from the ballot, finding that state statute prevents local school board members from political campaigning and saying that Janiec can only run for mayor if he first resigned from the nonpartisan school board. Janiec refused and appealed in court, and Judge Jesse Villalpando on March 30 declined to overturn the election board’s decision.

Judge Villalpando ruled that the election board acted consistently with legislative authority and local school board ethics policy disallowing this practice, despite the fact that two other school board members in Lake County are currently running for city council seats and it’s been done in the past in a state Senate race.

Attorneys for Janiec immediately appealed and asked the Supreme Court to grant emergency transfer because of the approaching election and early voting that began April 4.

“The Court finds no basis in statute or law for disqualifying Janiec on this basis,” the justices' per curiam decision says, citing its 2009 decision in Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529, 532, that impacted the Terre Haute mayoral race and held the disqualification statute must be construed in harmony with the longstanding policy on giving people the right to have free and equal elections.

Highland attorney William Fine, who is representing Janiec, said this court ruling reaffirms settled law and practice within the state of Indiana. He didn’t immediately know how many ballots would remain valid without Janiec’s name, or whether that issue could resurface down the road following the primary election. Janiec had run against Democratic incumbent Tom McDermott in 2007 and lost by less than 500 votes.

A 12 p.m. Monday deadline is set for the parties to agree on a way to handle the remaining votes on already distributed ballots, and the court will then resolve any remaining disputes.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT