ILNews

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.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT