Justices rule Charlie White was eligible for office

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Refusing to go against the will of Indiana voters, the state’s highest court has held that Charlie White was eligible to run for secretary of state and assume that office after being elected in 2010.

The justices on Thursday upheld their practice of not “judicially disenfranchising” voters, reversing the decision by Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg which had held that Charlie White was not eligible to run as a candidate for secretary of state as a result of being improperly registered to vote.

“It is likely that the average voter was aware that there were concerns about White‘s voter registration history at the time of the election,” the opinion says, “but we will not, on the basis of the present petition, judicially disenfranchise voters who went to the polls aware of what were at that moment only allegations.”

While the ruling in Charlie White, et. al. v. Indiana Democratic Party, through its Chairman , Daniel J. Parker, No. 49S00-1202-MI-73 impacts statutory interpretation for candidates and elected office holders, the ruling is essentially moot as it applies to the former secretary of state in this case because he has already been removed from office on different grounds.

The Indiana Democratic Party challenged White’s eligibility as a candidate after the November 2010 general election, saying that he was registered to vote at his ex-wife’s home where he didn’t reside and wasn’t properly registered to be a candidate for that election. The Indiana Recount Commission decided last summer White was eligible and could hold the office. But on judicial review, Rosenberg ruled in December 2011 that White wasn’t eligible and the second-highest vote getter should take the office.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote the 20-page opinion, finding the state Democratic Party’s post-election challenge was untimely and they should have challenged the voter registration matter before the election.

The Democratic Party didn’t file a pre-election challenge as they could have within 74 days of the general election pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-8-1 to -8, and the court found the party should have been more diligent to comply with that timeline in filing an election challenge.

The justices relied on Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. 2009) in balancing the line between the disqualification provision in post-election contests and impeding the pre-election application of state law in challenging a person’s qualifications to be a candidate. The specific statutory requirements at issue in this case have present tense language and refer to those who are currently candidates or remain candidates for office, the justices determined.

“Our conclusion is that the Code places a burden on political campaigns to investigate and vet their opposition before the pre-election time limitations expire, but that is better than the alternative: that a challenger might ignore a known (or knowable) disqualification challenge before the election, wait to see who won at the polls, and then seek to set aside the results of the democratic process,” Shepard wrote. “Such a result is inconsistent with free elections and respect for voters’ expressed preferences.”

Justice Brent Dickson concurred in result, but wrote separately to say that he agreed with the election contest being dismissed because he sees the Legislature’s attempt to impose additional eligibility qualifications on candidates as unconstitutional and not a basis to contest someone’s eligibility for office.

This appeal does not involve any aspect of a separate criminal case against White, which led to his being convicted in February of six felonies including voter fraud and his receiving a one-year sentence of home detention and being removed from office. The governor appointed Jerry Bonnet as the interim replacement, and following the court’s ruling, Daniels said he will move forward with choosing a permanent successor.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?