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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT