Justices take secretary of state case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear the appeals of a Marion County judge’s decision that found Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White ineligible to hold office.

The justices accepted jurisdiction of the two appeals pending in the Indiana Court of Appeals and consolidated the cases under cause No. 49S02-1202-MI-73. The appeals stem from Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg’s Dec. 22, 2011, decision declaring White was ineligible to be a candidate for the state office and his opponent, Democrat Vop Osili, should become secretary of state. The ruling was in response to a civil lawsuit filed by Democrats that sought to have White declared ineligible for office because he allegedly committed voter fraud.

"What the public needs now is an objective and unambiguous ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court to bring certainty, clarity and finality to this situation, 15 months after the election,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement. The attorney general’s office represents the Indiana Recount Commission in the litigation. The recount commission found White eligible to appear on the 2010 ballot as a candidate for secretary of state, but that decision was overturned by the trial court.

In a separate criminal case in Hamilton County, a jury found White guilty in early February of six felony charges including voter fraud. Jerry Bonnet has been appointed as the temporary secretary of state, but Gov. Mitch Daniels held off making a permanent appointment because of the possibility White’s felony convictions could be reduced to misdemeanors, which may allow him to stay in office.

Supreme Court oral arguments are set for 9 a.m. Feb. 29.



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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.