Now that former Secretary of State, Charlie White, has been convicted of voter fraud; there will be a battle over who is rightfully entitled to that office.
I have previously pointed out that, under IC 3-12-11-25, Vop Osili is entitled to a certificate of election. That statute says:
[W]henever the [recount] commission makes a final determination under section 18 of this chapter that the candidate who is subject to a contest proceeding is not eligible to serve in the office to which the candidate is nominated or elected, the candidate who received the second highest number of votes for the office is entitled to a . . . certificate of election even though a certificate may have been issued to another candidate upon the tabulation of the votes.
(emphasis added) (Also, if you read that statute, it speaks to Osili’s right to a certificate of election. It makes little sense to believe that, if White was an illegitimate candidate to start with, that White’s subsequent acts – be it getting a criminal conviction or tendering a resignation – should be able to compromise whatever rights Osili has.)
Osili didn’t write that law. It was a policy choice made by past General Assemblies – both the one that enacted the law in the first place and the successive ones that chose not to modify that provision over the years. So, for Osili’s opponents to complain that efforts on his behalf to have him take the office are somehow illegitimate is just so much sound and fury. He is seeking to have the law enforced; “legitimate” by definition — of or conforming to the law.
The more interesting question has more to do with an equitable or moral claim to the office. That question hinges on whether an election is seen more as a contest between candidates or as between political parties. Are you casting your vote for an individual or for the political party as a collective? That question probably differs from person-to-person and even from race-to-race. For example, I voted for John Dennis to be mayor of West Lafayette. If he was somehow disqualified, I’d be upset if he was replaced by, say, Mike Pence. I wasn’t voting for a political party or against Mayor Dennis’ challenger, John Polles. In that election, I have the feeling the individual and not the party has the stronger claim to the office; but, I admit, that view is probably idiosyncratic, dependent on how I went about deciding on how I would cast my vote.
In the case of the Secretary of State race, if you feel like it’s a battle between parties and not individuals; then, clearly, you’d view it as inappropriate for Osili to take White’s place. If you feel like it’s a battle between individuals, then replacing White with a guy who got zero votes hardly seems preferable to Osili getting the office on the strength of the 632,000 Hoosiers who did vote for him.
In that election, I have the feeling the individual and not the party has the stronger claim to the office;
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the case of Governor, or some other high profile position, I agree with you.
But in the case of these low profile positions like SOS or AG, absolutely not. Most folks are voting party.
I’m pretty knowledgeable on politics, and all I knew about White was what I learned at the Republican convention where he was picked to run. I know nothing about “Vop” other than that he has a absurd name.
I think that, to the average person, there is far less risk having the governor pick the successor than letting Vop take over.
With that said, I do think the law is such that Vop is going to get it.
Dear Buzz, Your racist rants about Vops name kind of tells me all I need to know about you.Really, you said that?However it does not surprise me that you being a delegate would say such ignorant things.
Im really finding it hard to believe that in 2012 that bigots like you still exist. Maybe you should stop watching porn long enough to google his name to find out what you are talking about
BTW, What kind of name is Buzz?
The only thing wrong here is the Recount Commission has NOT made a determination against Charlie White. Will they? I don’t know.
And gosh, Buzz. Vop is a childhood nickname that stuck. His Wiki bio says that it is an acronym for “Voice of the People” since his parents deemed him an overly talkative toddler.
Or they’re hippies. Or Communists.
I stand by my assertion that it is an absurd name.
Like Adolf Mourdock?
Isn’t it nice to know that Bigots are alone and well in the republican party.
What kind of name is Reince? You think tarts just fine?
racist
Tone down the heat, please, Brad. Buzz can take it and dish it out just fine. But, this is my house, and I’d just as soon my guests not go throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry against other guests.
I figure Vop’s unusual name probably played a role in the election; speculation – even misguided – about how he came across it isn’t out of bounds since Vop is a public figure.
Anyway, feel free to tell Buzz he’s wrong a million ways from Sunday, but I’d appreciate it if you try to go about it in a reasonably polite way.
Doug, Really? I take great offense to your not calling Buzz out on this issue. His comments are racist in nature. Vop is a public feature,however for you to condone the personal attack on him is beyond my understanding. For someone who promotes civility, your not being fair here.IM am well aware of the problems that Vop had in the state wide election concerning his name.For racists like Buzz to attack him because he has an African name is beyond understanding.Good luck with your blog, now I can see where you stand.
The Recount Commission didn’t; but the trial court charged with reviewing the Commission has determined that, as a matter of law, based on the findings of fact made by the Recount Commission; a finding against White was required – he remanded it to the Recount Commission with instructions to find against White. It has not followed that order yet because the trial court stayed the order pending appeal. That stay might theoretically be lifted based on the notion that, now White doesn’t have the office anyway, there is no longer a compelling reason that the order be stayed.
The law is the law and Osili should be the SoS. The law has to do with people not parties in this case. But I would agree that people are voting parties not people by the time they get to SoS. (To use a name I know Doug is fond of, I think the Republicans could have gotten Mitch Roob elected SoS in that particular election, so prevalent was anti-Democrat sentiment at that time.)
The course of action for Republicans is to re-claim the office at the next election, and perhaps first check that their candidate this time has such matters as their eligibility to vote in order. (Hey, it’s your party. Run it as badly as you like, I don’t care.)
You are right that White did not get the scrutiny that he should have. He was parading around his new piece-of-ass wife at the Republican convention, which I thought was unseemly. He certainly was not my choice, but then, we really did not have on at the convention.
This was in stark contrast to the convention two years before, where the Ron Paul faction gave us a choice for AG, and we chose Zoeller over Mitch’s crony Jon Costas.
Vop Osili was born in Nigeria, so I imagine his parents were neither hippies nor communists. Simply a different cultural framework.
Still, I’ll grant you that have some standing as a critiquer of “nicknames”, having a doozy of your own. ;)
Nigerians naming their kid “Voice of the People”? They’re Communists.
I do have a knack for nicknames. Ask the Chairman of the Recount Commission, Dan “Dumey” Dumizich. He hates that one.
His given name is Samuel Ifeanyi Osili. Only he knows why he prefers Vop to some version of Samuel. Catchy? Unique? Preference?
Names and nicknames are a chancy thing. You should see what passes for spelling of names in many elementary schools today. I believe it’s a cross between an inabilty to spell and a mad desire to name their child something “unique”. The funny part is that most who do so are insulted when one cannot fathom their “correct” pronunciation without first being told.
I can only imagine what “nicknames” you might be muttering under your breath for some of us here when you are posting comments. Heh.
Well… I do use the term SWhiPL many times (“Stuff White People Like”) over here.
So he must have had his name legally changed from Samuel to Vop, right? I don’t recall him being listed on the ballot as, “Samuel (Vop) Osilli”.
Ummm Buzznutz,
Vops father fought in the revolution for Democracy in Nigeria..any more stupid comments? We get the fact that you are a troll, trying to stir up the pot. So have at it, your ignorance is astounding.
Just point of fact, being born in ’63 as he was, to an American mother and a Nigerian father, in Lagos, his parents were most likely Communists. That really does explain “Voice of the People”.
If I were advising him, I would have him run as Samuel. Vop is just too weird for whitebread, Indiana.
Doug –
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I always learn something reading your blog.
Question, bit of a digression, how could Charlie commit voter fraud. I mean, didn’t they check his ID?
The Election Commision findings of fact were that White was living at his ex-wife’s house and hadn’t moved into the condo. That finding is contrary to what the jury found. While Judge Rosenberg reversed the Election Commission, he did not over rule the EC’s factual findings but said because the stay at the ex-wife’s house was “temporary” as he was eventually going to move into the condo, the ex-wife’s house could not qualify as a residence for voting purposes. As you yourself pointed out Doug, there is a statute that it appears Judge Rosenberg missed dealing with temporary living situations.
The jury did not find White was not a legally registered voter…though the facts are virtually the same on the issues decided by the EC and the jury.
I for the life of me do not understand the trial strategy of not introducing any evidence. He won on the facts in front of the EC, facts that woudl have extricated himself from 6 of the 7 felony charges upon which he was convicted. Yet he goes in front of the jury and decides not to call any witnesses or introduce any evidence? White’s ex-wife was a powerful witness in front of the EC. I doubt the jury woudl have convicted White if he would have called her. But instead he opts to remain mute in light of the prosecutiion’s case. I know the prosecution’s case was all circumstantial and they had no direct evidence, but it’s still going to have a lot of weight with the jury when there’s nothing on the other side.
By the way, didn’t the legislature change the law so the second place finisher doesn’t take over?
I’m sorry…the change in law dealt with ballot position…not that the 2nd place finisher takes over.
Actually it did both. The “majority party status” ballot access piece was changed so that this case does not affect the Republicans going forward. The “second place takes over” piece was amended, but only for challenges that are initiated after 1/1/11.
Doug,
I would add that under the felony removal statute, there is a paragraph that says that since if felonies are felonies NOT committed in the course of his job and the Class D felonies are entered as Class A misdemeanors, White has to be reinstated as Secretary of State. So until the judge rules, I think it would be premature to put Vop Osili in office even if that is a possibility.
Doug, your blog has now lost every bit of credibility. Your allowing a troll to run your site? So much for street cred.
What? I should let you run the site? I don’t think so.
You’re not the first one to throw a fit when I asked them to be polite; and I’m sure you won’t be the last.
But, it’s a relief to be exposed. Your keen intellect has revealed that which has escaped lesser minds. I’m clearly anti-Osili. I guess the give away was that I didn’t hurl the Internet equivalent of fecal matter at Buzzcut when he said something I disagreed with. Bravo sir, bravo!
No, here’s an attempt at trolling:
Not me, it was Keith Olbermann.
All I have to say in my defense is that “Being Offended” is #101 on Stuff White People Like.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don’t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about “flyover states”). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it’s wrong to use the term “black” instead of “African-American,” they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.
;)
Doug, sounds like Brad really hit a nerve. I’m just a bit confused about why it’s okay with you for Buzzcut to use “Communist” and “hippies” about Vop or his parents or whoever, but “racist” is a term you won’t tolerate; in fact you call it the “Internet equivalent” of throwing “fecal matter”. Some people might arguably assume that someone is racist based on his choice of words about people whom he doesn’t know in the slightest. I am sincere in my confusion. Why no censuring of Buzzcut?
I don’t like my guests calling my other guests names. I’d impose the same rules if they were at my house. If Brad said, “Bush was a fucking Nazi,” I wouldn’t have blown the whistle — unless Bush happened to be over for the Super Bowl party or something.
And, just so you know, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time debating my reasons. I’ve seen more than one online host get their site tangled up in a bunch of navel-gazing because they felt the need to spend a thousand words justifying themselves. It’s pretty useless. I don’t spend a lot of time explaining to my son why he gets whistled for Action “A” when he’s complaining that his sister didn’t get whistled for Action “B”.
As a general rule, here are my stages:
1. Please be polite.
2. I asked you to be polite, don’t be an idiot.
3. Go fuck yourself.
4. Banned.
I got it. Thanks, Daddy!
I’d have to disagree with Buzz’s assertion that whomever the governor picks will be better than Vop. Have you seen who the governor’s picked to run some of his agencies (much less the Secretary of State?!) I don’t know how good Vop would be, but some of Daniels’ appointments have been devastating.
For instance, his choices for Workforce Development, who have damned our state’s unemloyment system to a special hell that’ll take years to get fixed, have been terrible (except for the second commissioner). They are there to cover-up for the governor instead of being fiscally-sound stewards of taxpayer and business money.
Daniels said, the other day when he appointed the temporary replacement, that this guy is a “long-time state employee”. Bull crap. Being there only since 2005 is not a “long time” employee (except under Daniels when they get rid-of whomever they want). I have little faith in most people the governor chooses, and already have little faith in this pick for SOS.
BTW, I am a different Brad than the other one — sorry for the confusion, but I’ve commented before! Haha
Listen, I’m not going to argue that Mitch doesn’t appoint cronies. That is his M.O.
But Hoosiers are comfortable with that, by and large, for better or worse. In case you guys haven’t noticed, the trend in this state is not only largely Republican, it is almost Tsunami like in its size. Let me remind you guys something from a Howey column regarding redistricting:
• The 40 Democratic-held Indiana House districts gained a total of 4,681 people, an average of 117 per district.
• The 60 GOP-held Indiana House districts gained a total of 398,636 people, an average of 6,644 per district.
• The state total population gain was 403,317, an average of 4,033 per district.
• Thirty House districts lost population: 21 Democratic districts and 9 GOP districts.
• Nine of the top 10 population-losing districts — and 15 of the top 20 — are held by Democrats.
• Twenty-five of the 40 House Democrats represent districts largely or totally contained in five counties — Allen, Lake, Madison, Marion and St. Joseph. Collectively, these districts show a population loss of 28,017.
• There are eight House members of the Legislative Black Caucus. Only two — Reps. John Bartlett and Cherrish Pryor — have population gains in their Indianapolis districts. The remaining six — including all three in Lake County — showed significant population losses.
• The total population in the current Democrat-held districts is enough to support 37.5 House districts, assuming each has a population of exactly 64,838 — 1/100th of the state’s 2010 population. Conversely, GOP-held districts have enough population to support 62.5 House districts.
• Generally accepted restricting assumptions are that districts can differ by up to 10 percent — 5 percent on either side of the average. This means new House districts could have a population range of between 61,596 and 68,080. By those guidelines, only 14 of the 40 Dem-held districts now meet or exceed the new minimum population requirement. Conversely, 47 of the 60 GOP-held districts meet or exceed it.
You guys are not going to recognize this state after 2012. The General Assembly is going to be as Republican as the Senate, if not more so.
I think that going against that trend, and putting a guy in who got 37% of the vote, is a recipe for disaster. At some point y’all have to have some Reapolitik here.
Everybody appoints cronies, but the Governor has an unusally poor record for picking competent cronies. Maybe not in the same league as President Grant, but not as far from it as I’d like.
It’s the law. Not following the law, to me, isn’t a recipe for disaster – it IS a disaster.
Republicans will win the SoS office back in 2014 provided they can find someone to be their candidate who can not violate the very voter fraud laws they implemented a few years ago.
That’s not a very high bar to cross, you’d think.
I agree, they need to follow the law. The Mitch and Friends talking point now seems to be that the D’s could have had White removed from the ballot during the challenge period, but failed to do so within that period. Thus, White is the legitimate SoS officeholder, and thus Mitch gets to pick the replacement.
Let me know how that works out for them. Best I can tell, Osili’s gonna be SoS for 12-24 months then get voted out of office.
Wonder who will replace him here in Indianapolis on the City County Council? Is that a mayoral replacement or a party replacement?
When you say “you guys”, please don’t refer to me! I’m no Democrat — I hate Mitch Daniels, but the Democratic Party annoys me quite often. I’m no fan of the Republican Party, either.
I think the whole tsunami thing is a bit of a stretch to some degree; the numbers don’t look good for Democrats in many regards, but Indiana has a long history of being center-right with stretches into left territory (ever-so-slightly, just a little bit of a smidge past the center). This state voted for a Democrat in 2008 for President 40 years after it last did (and it might be another 40 before it does again). We had 16 years of Democratic governors in the 90s and 00s. So while Republicans are getting a big head, they need to remember the pendulum swings quite often in this state and it’ll swing again. It may not this year, but any gains for the Democrats in the House (even a vote or 2) cannot be seen as a good thing for Republicans. And I think the vote or 2 (or more) might very well happen this year.
But if nothing else, thank God that Mitch the Fiscal Fraud won’t be governor anymore after this year.
Buzzcut, Communist, really? If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was Indianapolis in 1962 and you were a dues-paying member of the John Birch society. Thanks for my best laugh of the day.
Hey, I’m just sayin’. It’s a high likelihood.
Like Obama, the sins of Vop’s parents don’t necessarily have a direct impact on his character, but it could very well explain many of his life choices, just from a pop psychology standpoint.
I know Vop personally and professionally. He’s a very successful businessman in a field that is very difficult: he co-founded and ran the architecture firm A2So4 and expanded their work into overseas markets as well as kept it on the leading edge here in Indiana. He also has been active in the architecture and education community on a volunteer basis.
In this case, I didn’t vote for a party, I voted for a person I know to be of exceptionally high character. If he should make it to the SoS position due to Charlie White’s mistakes, I’m confident he’ll do a good and honest job, because that’s who he is as a person and businessman.
Buzzcut, you’re smart; please try not to use pop psychology (your term) and name-calling to brush off a very respectable person in the face of the undeniable absurdity of Charlie White.
Please read IC 5-8-1-38
Felony conviction; removal; appeal; reinstatement; remuneration; vacancy
Sec. 38. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) “Felony” has the meaning set forth in IC 3-8-1-5.
(2) “Public officer” means any person, elected or appointed, who holds any state, county, township, city, or town office.
(b) Any public officer convicted of a felony during the public officer’s term of office shall:
(1) be removed from office by operation of law when:
(A) in a jury trial, a jury publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony;
(B) in a bench trial, the court publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony; or
(C) in a guilty plea hearing, the person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony; and
(2) not receive any salary or remuneration from the time the public officer is removed from office under subdivision (1).
(c) The subsequent reduction of a felony to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5 after the:
(1) jury has announced its verdict against the person for a felony;
(2) court has announced its verdict against the person for a felony; or
(3) person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony;
does not affect the operation of subsection (b).
(d) If the conviction is:
(1) reversed;
(2) vacated;
(3) set aside;
(4) for a felony other than a felony arising out of an action taken in the public officer’s official capacity, reduced to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5; or
(5) not entered because the trial court did not accept the guilty plea;
and the public officer’s term has not expired, the public officer shall be reinstated in office and receive any salary or other remuneration that the public officer would have received had the public officer not been removed from office.
(e) If the conviction is reversed, vacated, or set aside and the public officer’s term has expired, the public officer shall receive any salary or other remuneration that the public officer would have received had the public officer not been removed from office.
Anybody else think that (c) and (d) (4) contradict one another and that (c) indicates that White should be immediately permanently removed from office?
Perhaps I was not clear as to the tack that Mitch&Co. are going to take. Well, here is is in their own words:
Always quick to point fingers and claim disenfranchisement, Indiana Democrats are engaging in a true form of the practice: trying to overturn an election they lost by over 300,000 votes.
After missing the deadline to contest an election held two years ago, twice the Indiana Recount Commission has dismissed the Indiana Democratic Party’s complaints regarding the 2010 Secretary of State’s race, once with a 3-0 unanimous ruling that included a former Democrat judge appointed by Democrat State Chairman Dan Parker.
At the time of the appointment, Chairman Parker said the appointee, Buddy Pylitt, would “put the facts of this case first.” He did, and voted with the two Republican members to dismiss the case.
Instead of accepting the Recount Commission’s decisions, the Indiana Democratic Party is now relying on one Marion County Democrat Judge to personally overturn an Indiana statewide election.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle are demanding Judge Rosenberg overturn an election thereby making sure your vote for Secretary of State in 2010 didn’t count.
If they spent as much time getting public support for initiatives like the new Right to Work law, our school voucher program, the states’ photo I.D. law, or overturning past elections, they wouldn’t have to tie up our public courts at taxpayer expense.
They can take whatever tack they want, they know their candidate isn’t eligible. Making it even more amusing is that the jury foreman has been quoted as saying they “probably would have” acquitted White if ANYONE would have testified in his defense.
It would appear to me that White and those around him are suffering from a severe lack of competence.
What you are missing is that, even if he was ineligible, there is only a certain timeframe where a candidate’s eligibility can be challenged. The D’s missed that timeframe, thus White was in fact a legitimate candidate.
That was the finding of the Board.
Doesn’t matter what the board found relevant to his candidacy – he’s now a felon because he committed fraud to stay on the Fishers Town Council despite not being eligible due to his residency. Felons can’t hold office, hence White isn’t eligible.
Interesting reading on Abdul’s blog this morning – he posits that Mike Wherry is the SOS because Osili gave up his claim to the office by getting elected to the City County Council. The document from the previous SoS would seem to give that claim some credence.
I suspect this will all be settled in October 2014.
The Recount Commission did not base its finding on the timeliness of the challenge to White’s candidacy.
OK, I was reading into that statement I quoted and highlighted above. Still, there is a challenge period. That aspect of the law needs to be accounted for as well.
Nobody has said anything but Buzzcut also called Mr. White’s current wife a “piece of a…” early on in the above posts. That added nothing
valuable to the ideas in your post.
I don’t know her. I don’t know Mr. White. I voted for Mr. Osili.
Take all the name-calling shots at Mr. White that you want because
Mr. White deserves them. But have the decency to refrain from insulting current or ex-spouses.
I think that it is relevant, at least as far as the ostensible “family values” party is concerned ( a description that we so often fail to live up to, sadly).
I was uncomfortable with what I saw from the White clan that day. New, hot wife (is that a more acceptable description than the previous one?), her children mixed with his children, and the knowledge that he JUST got divorced. It didn’t seem right, and I can’t say that I was surprised when the charges came out.
It is really too bad that more of us weren’t comfortable with White at that convention, and that we organized some opposition, as was done in the previous convention to get Zoeller in as AG (he was not the Mitch&Co. candidate).