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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT