ILNews

Justices won't intervene in secretary of state eligibility case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on an emergency transfer request, the Indiana Supreme Court today accepted Secretary of State Charlie White’s appeal against the state’s Democratic Party and ruled it won’t put a halt to the case while a recount investigation and criminal voter fraud proceedings are ongoing.

With that, the justices are allowing for the Indiana Recount Commission to rule on whether White – elected as the state’s chief election officer in November – was eligible for office because he registered using a false home address during his campaign.

Both White and the commission had appealed Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg’s decision in the past month ordering commission members to hear a challenge from Democrats, who allege White was illegally registered to vote at the time he declared his candidacy and therefore ineligible to run. The commission has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for the election contest June 21 and self-imposed a June 30 deadline for deciding on the matter.

That eligibility is related but separate from the criminal case in Hamilton County involving White. He faces a trial in August on felony voter fraud charges. The newly elected state official remains in office while these two matters are pending. He asked the Supreme Court to stay the recount matter until the criminal case is resolved on grounds that the voter fraud question is what is at issue in both civil and criminal proceedings. White argued that putting the recount matter first could jeopardize the felony case if he decides to defend himself.

The two-page order came today in Charlie White, et al. v. Indiana Democratic Party, No. 49S02-1105-MI-291. Noting that it only accepts jurisdiction on Appellate Rule 56(A) cases in extraordinary matters involving emergency and substantial questions of law of great public importance, the justices granted the request in this case. The court denied White’s request to stay the matter.

While dismissing the appeal to allow the recount commission process to play out, the court noted it would keep jurisdiction of the matter in case a further appeal surfaces. But it cautioned the parties that it likely would be “disinclined” to accept a discretionary interlocutory appeal in the name of a speedy resolution to this matter.

This case has significant implications for the state, as it could determine whether the Republican-elected White is allowed to stay in office. State officials are not able to hold elected office if they are convicted of a felony, but the recount commission could also remove White if it determines he wasn’t legally registered and able to be included on the ballot in the first place. The Indiana attorney general has argued that state statute says someone must be “registered,” not that he or she must be “legally registered.”

During the 2011 legislative session, the Republican-controlled General Assembly attempted to amend state law allowing for the governor to appoint the secretary of state’s replacement if the officeholder is removed. Currently, the law says the second-highest vote getter in the November election would take the position – in this case that would be Democrat Vop Osili. Control of the secretary of state’s office determines a party’s placement on the ballot and appointment of election board officials, and a change would have ripple effects for the Republicans who now have control.

The Legislature ultimately declined to act on what had been dubbed “the Charlie White Rule,” with attorney and House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, joining others who said they weren’t comfortable intervening in an active lawsuit.

After today’s transfer decision by the court, Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said in a written statement that he’s happy with the ruling and he hopes the commission will continue to move forward with the complaint.

“Republicans threw out every roadblock they could to delay or discard this case,” he said in the statement, “but the central question has never been answered.”

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