The Indiana Election Board’s hearing on Charlie White is today. Everyone and their dog is covering it (interesting testimony gets repeated four or five times in my Twitter stream), and I haven’t been watching the twists and turns with any diligence, so I’m definitely not your best source of information. But, when has that ever stopped me.
White’s case is remarkable because, for all of the gnashing of teeth about voter fraud, the only case we’ve heard about involves, of all people, the guy voted to enforce our election laws. And Voter ID requirements didn’t do a thing to stop it. (Further indication that voter fraud is a pretext and stringent Voter ID requirements are not a good faith solution to a legitimate problem).
The thrust of this hearing is to determine whether White was legally registered to vote when he became a candidate to be Indiana Secretary of State. The problem is that he appears to have misrepresented his residential address when he registered to vote. He did that, most likely, because being honest about his residence would have disqualified him as a town councilman.
Rather than change his voter registration address to an out-of-precinct address, he used his ex-wife’s address (in the precinct). However, in most other aspects of his life, he used his out-of-precinct condo address. He claimed a homestead deduction for the condo, used it as a place to receive checks, and used it for a good many other purposes.
White seems to be giving the Election Board a choice between believing he’s fairly dishonest or fairly incompetent. Despite being an attorney, county party chairman, and candidate for Secretary of State, White is essentially saying he didn’t know any better. And, in any event, (he says) he was crashing at his ex-wife’s place with her and her new husband. He says his fiancee was living at his new place and wouldn’t let him live there until they were married. His fiancee apparently wasn’t on the lease and, in other documentation, claimed to be living with her mother. White says that had to do with her bad credit.
White claims to have been confused by what was meant by “present address” on his mortgage application, that he didn’t know he had to live in his district to continue serving as councilman, and that he didn’t know he had filed for a homestead deduction.
First, the Secretary of State has absolutely zero enforcement authority over Indiana’s election laws.
Second, the testimony today is that he was residing exactly where he voted from, his ex-wife’s and new husband’s house. The Demcorats have no witnesses who dispute that. White has the ex-wife and new husband who are going to testify that is accurate. He wasn’t living at the condo because his fiance did not want to live together until they were married.
As a former title insurance attorney who has done probably a 100 closings, I know more than a little about real estate. The homestead deduction is filled out at the time of the closing. It was filed by the title company. He testified that he had the intent to occupy when he exexcuted the mortgage document.. That’s all you need.
He testified that the mortgage application was filled out by the broker and he only looked at key things like income, employment, etc., not confirming things like addresses. Again, that extremely common.
As far as being incompetent for missing things at a real estate closing, have you ever seen the stock of documents you have at a closing, especialy an FHA closing? We used to HATE people who felt they had to read every word of every document. Fortunately few people did.
White did not say his fiance was living with her mother because of her bad credit. He said that she was living at the condo but her name was not on it because of bad credit. Again, that is perfectly understandable.
One thing is clear from the testimony thus far…there is no basis for criminal charges against White based on voter fraud. The testimony reeks of reasonable doubt. Of course the indicments would never happened if the prosecutors would have called the ex-wife and new husband. But they were more interested in getting the indictment than whether the charges could be proved at trial.
For a lousy $1000 in pay a month for illegally serving on the Fisher Council after having moved from his district this idiot goes balls to the wall and claims otherwise? Color me stupid but that dog don’t hunt.
Charlie White knew exactly what he was doing and the Petitioners tied it all in very nicely making their argument.
Charlie White was illegally registered to vote in the precinct he voted in and and the evidence presented bears out that fact.
Toss the damn partisonship aside, the guy defrauded not only voting laws but the taxpayers of Fishers and the people of the State of Indiana.
Personally, I feel sorry for Charlie. At his age, it’s one helluva time to have learn to grow up.
Nice summation of the case so far Doug. We’ll see what the Commission decides.
I happen to be good friends with a personal friend of Charlie White, someone who has talked to him about this, and Paul, you are 100% right. White is being railroaded. He did absolutely nothing wrong.
What is more, it is Mitch and the moneymen who are doing it to him, not just the D’s. Mitch wants to put one of his guys in there, probably Costas from Valpo.
As they used to say about the tuna — “poor Charlie”. It’s tragic when the the Peter Principle and Murphy’s Law converge.
Doug, you know that voters don’t demand competence in their elected officials. Just look at (insert name of just about any politician here Mad Libs style).
I still don’t understand why the Democrat would take office without a special election. Reasonably sure that any generic Republican would have won the office over whomever the Democrats put up because, well, this is Indiana we’re talking about, and the 2010 election was even more Republican-leaning than most Indiana elections.
The Democrat would take office because that is what state law says right now – 3-12-11-25.
IC 3-6-3.7-1
Secretary of state as state’s chief election official; exception
Sec. 1. Except as provided by IC 3-7-11-1, the secretary of state is the state’s chief election official.
As added by P.L.209-2003, SEC.7.
and…
IC 3-14-2-11
Voting in other precincts
Sec. 11. Except as provided by IC 3-10-10, IC 3-10-11, or IC 3-10-12, a person who knowingly votes or offers to vote in a precinct except the one in which the person is registered and resides commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.3-1987, SEC.466; P.L.10-1988, SEC.208; P.L.17-1993, SEC.17; P.L.12-1995, SEC.88.
Interested: Thanks.
Paul Ogden suggests that people do not, or even should not, read the documents at a real estate closing. As someone with a lot of experience in foreclosure litigation, and a former in-house attorney for a consumer lender who also supervised real estate closings, this is BAD advice. You are almost certainly going to be held to what is in the documents, whether you read them all or not. And I don’t know about Paul, but I had it hammered into me in law school to actually READ the documents I am signing, they have consequences.
Charlie White is a lawyer. He claimed at closing, and over and over and over again in numerous documents, that he was living at the new condo. Do we believe the documents, or do we believe the self-serving declarations of someone attempting to avoid criminal prosecution? And do we believe THIS version, or other earlier-reported versions?
The crux of this is where White’s residency was. IC 3-5-5 sets forth standards for residency. Like most of Title 3, it’s a mess.
You’d think maybe he was an “individual with a non-traditional residency,” but that’s defined under IC 3-5-2-26.7 as
So, probably, we’re dealing with IC 3-5-5-15:
However, this merely creates a rebuttable presumption. The presumption can be rebutted by demonstrating intent to reside in another precinct and conduct taken to implement that intent.
White bought a condo. He or an agent working on his behalf filed a homestead exemption for the condo. So far as I know, he has or intends to take advantage of that exemption. He had bills sent to that location. He made representations to others that the out-of-precinct condo was his residence.
But, he also seems to have represented in at least a couple of places that his ex-wife’s place was his residence. He and his wives testified on his behalf. Though, I’d argue that after-the fact-testimony from friends and well-wishers probably isn’t as convincing as contemporary documentary evidence.
I don’t, off hand, know the standard of proof or review in these matters, but my guess is that, a finding either way wouldn’t be an abuse of discretion. I’d expect a neutral jury to see a residency claim of living with your ex-wife as fishy when you own your own condo elsewhere. But, I’d expect the Election Board to split along party lines, and I’m not sure it would be an abuse of discretion for them to find in favor of White.
Greg’s comment slipped in as I was composing my own.
One final comment. Was the current wife, then fiancee, ok with him “living” with his ex-wife? They only thing that matches here with earlier comments is that White claimed earlier that he was going back and forth between the two residences.
And a lot of comments ignore that White was LEASING, in his own name, the condo since sometime in 2009, pre-closing on the purchase. Homeless? Hardly. His paycheck was sent there, all the bills were in his name, and he claimed the homestead exemption UNDER OATH with his own hand at the closing… I have the Sales Disclosure Statement.
So… was White lying at closing, which might convict him of the most serious criminal charge, mortgage fraud, or lying on the stand yesterday? Someone other than us will decide this, but I know where my opinion stands.
Paul Ogden should stop spreading disinformation about yesterday’s hearing. I was there, at counsel table, and I can assure anyone that the Democrats did present evidence and that it showed that White represented that the Overview condo he first leased in Nov. 09 and then purchased in Feb 10 would be used as his “principal residence.” He paid all the utility bills on the condo, made the lease and mortgage payments, told his former employer to send his final paycheck there, and told his new employer, Krieg Devault, that he resided at that condo. His fiancée and her kids moved into that condo, and even she conceded that Charlie was frequently there (why wouldn’t he be, they were engaged). White, on the other hand, claims to have resided at his ex-wife’s home at Broad Leaf during this time, even tho she and not he was paying the bills there. Plus White had a motive to keep this all discreet– he didn’t want the people of Fishers to find out that he’d moved out of his town council district. Could White have claimed he was covered by the homeowners insurance policy at his ex-wife’s home if he’d slipped and fallen there? Could he have claimed to “live” at his ex-wife’s house for purposes of enrolling his son in the public school serving that residence? Of course not. His claims that he resided at his ex- wife’s home rather than the condo he purchased are preposterous on their face, and to suggest that there was no evidence offered yesterday to dispute them is just plain inaccurate.
Just to clarify as to a slight difference in what I think Paul was arguing versus what Bill is arguing; I think — and he can speak up for himself — Paul was speaking to “witnesses” instead of “evidence.”
Paul’s blog entry contains a ridiculous amount of hyperbole with phrases like Charlie White “destroyed” the case against him. “Blew it out of the water,” in fact. Those phrases strike me more as wishful thinking than sound legal analysis.
For whatever reason, Paul thinks that witnesses saying a thing are necessarily superior as evidence to documents saying a thing; never mind that witnesses have fallible memories and after-the-fact agendas. The documents were contemporaneous with the events in question and completed when White didn’t have any particular motive for dishonesty.
The law is vague enough and White kicked up enough dust that, as I said, I think the finder of fact could go either way without it being deemed an abuse of discretion. But I disagree with Paul’s insistence on having a warm body say “He lived there” (without that person having any idea, necessarily, what the legal standard for ‘residence” might be) and his phrases like “blown out of the water” and “destroyed” are not, in my ever so humble opinion, well chosen.
The criminal trial will proceed regardless of the decision rendered by the Election Commission. One would fully expect the Commission to vote along party lines. In this instance the Commission has a GOP majority. If White were a Democrat and the Commission were comprised of a Democratic majority I would expect the same. It doesn’t eally matter in the end.
This matter is going to trail in criminal court based on charges handed down by a Grand Jury. Let’s not forget that.
A politcal win by Charlie coming from a Commission’s board who’s majority is comprised by members of his own political party IS NOT A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD.
Both of the Special Prosecutors, none having more weight than the other even though both are from different political parties, have a solid case against Mr. White. It they did not, then neither would have agreed on charges and wasted the court’s time nor their own.
Special Prosecutors John Dowd and Dan Sigler, Sr. will be sitting at the same table when White’s case comes to trial. Do not make the mistake of assuming either of these men will bring politics into the court room because they will not. They will state their case together, leave it to the jury to decide then go home. It’s really that simple.
Based upon available evidence and testimony given yesterday there is a very very good chance that Charlie White will go to prison. That of course, will be for a neutral jury to decide not me.