Tom Davies, writing for the Associated Press, has more details on the prosecution of Indiana Secretary of State, Charlie White. Of particular interest to me were the remarks of IU Law Professor Craig Bradley who says that White might have a plausible defense that White’s busy schedule caused him to screw up. However:
Bradley said prosecutors could argue that White had the political knowledge to know what he was doing was wrong.
“He would be in a position where he should know and follow the rules and perhaps make it more difficult for him to make an honest mistake kind of claim,” Bradley said.
(Professor Bradley is just all kinds of awesome, so I perk up whenever he’s quoted. He was an assistant U.S. attorney in the 70s and subsequently clerked for Justice Rehnquist. More importantly, he has a great deadpan sense of humor and was a good criminal law professor.)
White is represented by movement conservative lawyer, Jim Bopp out of Terre Haute, who is usually seen advocating Republican voting law initiatives who is blaming White’s actions on a “chaotic personal situation.”
I think White’s “I was busy” defense is a lot of bunk. Rather, to the extent he was “confused” about the law or its application to him, I think it can be adequately explained by the Upton Sinclair quote:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
If White is convicted of a felony, he will be ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. Ordinarily, this would leave the matter of a replacement up to the Governor. However, the state Democrats are maintaining that, because the matters underlying White’s indictment pertain to whether he should have been on the ballot in the first place, the law requires that the second highest vote recipient – Vop Osili – should take White’s place.
I don’t know about what the law requires as to replacement in this situation. But, I think the “right” result depends on whether you view voters as voting for a party where the individual candidate is incidental or whether you view them as voting for a candidate where the candidate’s party is incidental. If the former, then the Republicans should get to choose a replacement; if the latter, then Osili should be the replacement.
Charlie White’s choice of lawyer is interesting in and of itself: James Bopp, the ultra-conservative Republican lawyer from Terre Haute who was the lead attorney for the infamous Citizens United case which demolished campaign finance restrictions.
The seven charges include 2 counts of written perjury, including lying on his marriage license application, theft for taking his Fishers Town Council salary when he was disqualified by moving out of his district, and fraud on a financial institution for lying on a mortgage application. Somehow, I doubt that “I forgot to re-register” works as a defense on those charges.
And I don’t know about Bopp, but White has been photographed with Indianapolis attorney Dennis Zahn, an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
So wait – if George Bush ever goes overseas and gets arrested/convicted for war crimes, does Al Gore get the office? Can he at least get a presidential library?
Seriously – I agree White is in a “gots to go” scenario, but the “loser gets the office” argument seems a little silly. Do they really think they would have beat a replacement Republican candidate? I mean, this is Indiana.
When all is done with this he will have spent at least $200K for his attorney fees, for a position that carries so little jobs patronage with it.
SOS is just a perceived step to those who want to run for a more prestigious office.
Joe, you seem to be viewing elections as primarily a struggle between Republicans and Democrats. And that’s a pretty realistic view. As a philosophical matter, I think you can argue that this was not the intent of the people framing our system of government. In a model democracy, an election would measure the sense of The People as to who the best individuals for the job might be. And, if that was what was going on, The People said Charlie White was the best choice – but, as he was ineligible for the office in the first place (so the argument goes), then The People should have their second choice, Vop Osili.
That, of course, is a deliberately naive view of how elections work in the real world.
A voter’s excuse that a “chaotic personal life” caused him to forget to bring his photo ID to the polls will not allow him to vote under the law which White and his predecessor promoted. Don’t we all have chaotic personal lives?
True enough. He was, however, eligible for office when elected (weren’t there challenges before the election?) so the people chose on that basis. If he had been ruled ineligible before the election, I’d understand the point completely.
I guess I’m not that bright, but I guess I don’t see how it’s different if an elected official had committed a murder before the election. Also a felony, also disqualifying from office, also happened before the election.
I’d be OK with a special election to replace White, but I guess it’s the idea that the first loser should get the office is what bothers me.
I mean, look at all the State Reps/Senators who run basically unopposed and get a couple thousand votes, and the Libertarians have a candidate who finishes second with 400 votes. Should that person be in a situation where they inherit the office? How’s that the will of the people?
Just another case where we shouldn’t have political parties at all.
White at least arguably concealed the acts which may be found to have constituted felonies. So do we reward such concealment? Also, the voters knew White was under a cloud when they voted for him. Why is it proper under those circumstances to allow one person, the Governor, to appoint his successor and deprive the voters of their choice of a candidate who was eligible and who received the second highest number of votes?
Charlie White learns he’s the latest victim of Incurable, But Non-debilitating Skillman/Buyer Unspecified Syndrome, forcing him to a) reluctantly step down; b) sadly accept a plea bargain despite his innocence; and c) wait a couple months before his Daniels-arranged corporate sinecure kicks in, just as soon as felony charges, and jail time, are off the table. You heard it here first.
Hey, I hear Duke’s got a couple of openings.
I took a peek at the Indiana Constitution, and only have this to offer as a layman: White would need to be impeached. In the Constitution, as well as IC Section 3, it only mentions being ineligible for running, being qualified for, or assuming office AFTER being convicted of a felony. By the statutes I read, which was not nearly an exhaustive search, White satisfied those conditions.
It appears to me, that because this felony conviction (if it happens) will be post-assumption, the only way to remove him is via impeachment.
This also makes the claim that the runner up should get the office a bit dubious, as it would appear that the election was fair and proper.
I think the fact that the SoS is responsible for election administration is the reason he is deploying the “chaos” defense instead of oversight/misunderstanding. The latter would be a base admission of incompetence to execute one of the primary functions of his office.
Someone who is more familiar with removal of state officers may have a different take – this is just what I came across.
MarcD –
Look at Art. 6, Sec. 8, and then at IC 5-8-1-38.