Former Indiana Secretary of State, Charlie White was sentenced yesterday. The judge left his felony convictions in place and sentenced him to serve multiple terms of home detention concurrently, with the upshot being he got one year of home detention and a $1,000 fine. While the fairest sentence under the circumstances would probably be to make him serve that home detention in his ex-wife’s basement, I’m reasonably satisfied that the sentence fits the offense.
I suppose my sense of retribution would be more satisfied by some jail time. The fact that no jail time was imposed makes it feel like upper class criminals get nicer treatment than your average drug user. And, maybe that’s true, but that speaks more to the deficiencies of the criminal justice system in other areas than the sentencing in this case. He’s not a threat to society. He’s not going to do this again. His sentence is significant enough to provide a deterrent effect to others in his position.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves the replacement issue. There has been some argument that, because he has been convicted and replaced by the Governor, that should trump the action against his eligibility. As a matter of logic, I don’t think that holds up. If he was never eligible to be a candidate, then his election was void ab initio. In a sense, it never happened. So, I don’t think Vop Osili supporters have a problem from that angle.
What could cause problems is if you wind up with the Supreme Court insisting on the inconsistent factual backgrounds from the two hearings — he lived at the townhouse with his fiance and was lying about living with his ex-wife in the criminal matter; but was telling the truth in the election board matter. On top of the latter, the Supreme Court could determine that the trial court got the law wrong based on the underlying facts (even while the result would’ve been correct, and White an ineligible candidate, if that judge had been working with the facts found by the jury in the criminal matter.)
So, it’s possible, we could end up with White being an eligible candidate because he was telling the truth about where he lived but properly removed from office because he was lying about where he lived.
So, it’s possible, we could end up with White being an eligible candidate because he was telling the truth about where he lived but properly removed from office because he was lying about where he lived.
Only in the American legal system. I am proud to be part of it.
It is nice to see he drew the felonies.
And what will that do for his law license?
White almost certainly will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. I’m no expert on the process (and have no personal experience with the system, thank God), but my uneducated guess, based on nothing more than reading the court’s disciplinary rulings, is that he will be suspended without automatic reinstatement but not permanently disbarred.
I think your guess is right on. White now has felonies and they may involve moral turpitude. As my old law partner would say, they will put White up on blocks for six months.
Doug, do you think it might come down to the level of deference, if any, the Court decides to apply in reviewing the Commission’s findings/conclusions?
You know, I think that might end up being the subtext, but I doubt much of the level of deference will make its way into the explicit reasoning.
As a practical matter, I don’t think the Supreme Court Justices will be able to completely ignore the findings of the jury in the criminal case. The standard of proof for the prosecution was higher, and the jury found that White was full of shit. The sentencing judge echoed that.
As a legal matter, I don’t think (but I’m not 100% positive) the jury determination can have any effect on the parallel Recount Commission proceedings – particularly since those proceedings happened first. The standards of evidence are probably different in the administrative proceedings as well. And, the Supreme
Court isn’t supposed to be in the business of substituting its fact determinations for that of the trial court (or Recount Commission in this case). Based on the evidence before the Recount Commission and the fact that the trial court purportedly embraced the Recount Commission’s findings, I’m not sure that the Supreme Court could find an abuse of discretion with those findings.
So, my guess is that the Supreme Court will formally state that it is relying on the facts as found by the Recount Commission, but that the justices’ own view on what the facts really are will influence, either consciously or unconsciously, how they interpret the relevant law.
Here’s my understanding: White’s bad form was discovered, but revealed in time for White to go to the elections office and refile a corrected voter registration form, in time to be a voter and on the ballot.
This doesn’t negate the previous forms for the offenses contained therein. It just makes him ballot eligible, and eligible to vote.
This is why it is called an ‘October Surprise’, btw. The bomb was dropped in September, leaving White enough time to fix it. If it was properly executed, it would have been a nuclear bomb. The Republican Party might have been off the ballot due to the laws tying ballot access to the result of parties’ Secretary of State results. Instead, this was reduced to a firecracker by letting the cat out of the bag so soon.
Just my two cents. I’m no lawyer, but having run for Secretary of State myself where my party’s ballot access life was on the line in a very meaningful way, I was once pretty well versed in this stuff.
The trial court judge considered and rejected that particular argument. He found there was a distinction between the permissible time period for becoming an eligible voter as opposed to becoming an eligible candidate. He was too late for the latter.
Here (pdf) is the trial court order overturning the Recount Commission. See, in particular, page 7. He cited IC 3-8-1-1(b)(1) for the proposition that a person is not qualified to run for state office unless the person is registered to vote not later than the deadline to file the declaration of candidacy or certificate of nomination. That deadline was July 15, 2010; in contrast to the deadline to be able to vote which was October 4, 2010.
Thanks for the link, Doug. The reasoning of the Circuit court seems reasonable and supportable.
I have not followed this case much. How does the verdict of the criminal trial and the relevant facts conflict with, or support, this Circuit Court decision?
While I haven’t followed the proceedings in detail, at least based on media reports it seems that White’s cell phone records were the key evidence that the jury in the criminal matter heard but were not introduced before the recount commission. Those records showed that during the time White claims he was spending the overwhelming majority of time at his wife’s home, the overwhelming majority of his cell phone calls were transmitted through a tower that was near the condo, where this then-fiance lived but where White supposedly did not live.
Thank you, John.
Many, many thanks for the link! I’ve been trying to ascertain the law cited in the case, and assumed it was IC 3-14-1-13.
Ok, so by this reasoning, White didn’t commit voter fraud, but was ineligible to even be on the ballot. Isn’t that more or less the opposite of the trial results?
I’m most interested by the idea that Osili gave up his claim to the office by getting elected to the Indianapolis City-County Council, thereby making Mike Wherry – the Libertarian candidate – the replacement.
I don’t think that’s a viable claim. The way the candidate eligibility statute reads, Osili was the highest vote recipient among eligible candidates. So, as of the date of the election, he was entitled to a certificate of election. I think he would be properly regarded as the “true” Secretary of State between the date of election and his taking his council position. You would then look to the procedure for replacing office holders who resign in the middle of their term, not to the procedure addressing candidates who were never eligible in the first place.
So by your logic, if I’m reading that right, the Democrats gave up their right to the office and Daniels makes the replacement?
I would have liked to have seen more creative sentencing such as
3 years suspended on condition that he perform 1,000 hours of
community service. I can think of some animal shelters where
the dog cages and runs need cleaning every day, and who better to handle
a shovel full and wade through that crap than Charlie? Garden hoses
wouldn’t be allowed.
Boy, all these people worried about who the Secretary of State will be. I’m appalled that you’d subject his ex to the involuntary servitude of jailing him in her basement.
Paul,
Are you going to post my last comment?
CW
The following was posted in the “About” section of my blog. That’s not where such things go, I think it was intended for this thread. It was posted by someone purporting, at least, to be Charlie White. I have no way of verifying. But, it read as follows:
Nah, I’m not a Libertarian, though I was at one time. I’m a bit of a mutt, politically these days. Most of the commentary you see on my blog probably leans Democratic, but that’s mostly because I comment on state and federal issues and haven’t much cared for the trend among Republicans at those levels. The True Believer, Movement Republicans has, in my opinion, degraded a once pretty good party. But, on a local level, I like most of the Republicans just fine. So, I suspect that if we went and counted my votes for the last 4 years or whatever, it’s a pretty good mix of Republicans, Democrats, and the occasional Libertarian.
As for the concerns for liberty, I’m reminded of the old saying, “a Republican is a Democrat who has been mugged. A Democrat is a Republican who has been arrested.”
But, your post is a good reminder that public figures are, also, real flesh and blood human beings. It’s easy to poke fun when they are just abstractions. Whether you’re honestly Charlie White or not, it probably bears remembering that he’s not just some character that shows up in the papers; and I shouldn’t be so quick to make jokes.
Can’t wait for that podcast. Is his Mom gonna take care of that too?
Hi Doug:
You’re a lawyerly sort of fellow, so perhaps you can explain how it is that Mr. White got convicted of a felony for voting from his ex-wife’s address while living elsewhere, while Mr Lugar votes from an address where he hasn’t lived in 30+ years, and keeps getting rulings from various legal authorities that it’s perfectly OK?
Be well,
Dave H.
I don’t know the ins and outs of either situation. Among other things, I don’t know anything about the paperwork filed by Sen. Lugar on various things. But, it might have something to do with the different requirements for being candidates. For state office, it’s governed by IC 3-8-1-1. For federal senator, it’s Art. 1, sec. 3, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
I don’t know whether any of the documents submitted by Sen. Lugar for various things could be said to be falsely procuring a voter registration or committing perjury or the like.
I couldn’t quickly find a copy of the verdict, but the charging information is here (pdf), so you can see exactly what the crimes charged were.
This may not answer the Lugar question, but Article 2, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution states:
“No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State, by reason of his absence, either on business of this State or of the United States.”
That has been held to “grandfather” in a person’s residence for voting purposes as of their election to federal office. I have said elsewhere, I don’t think Lugar has much of a legal problem, his problem is seeming out of touch with Hoosiers by his long absence, and that is a political issue.
To comment on something CW said, and yes, it makes me think it WAS the real CW, I was subpeoned by Charlie White to testify at the Recount Commission hearing, without any apparent intent on his part to actually call me as a witness (he didn’t), and left me sitting all day. And any admonishment for separation of the witnesses just keeps witnesses from talking to each other about the facts of the case, not the attorneys for the parties. Bill Groth was one of the attorneys for the Democratic Party, so I was perfectly entitled to talk to HIM. I would also have been entitled to talk with Charlie’s attorneys, but they never once asked. Ever.
I can see why Charlie would be upset with me, I am the guy who brought this story to light. I feel bad for his family, but not for anything I did. CHARLIE DID THIS TO HIMSELF, and to his family. Judge Nation, and a Grand Jury and a trial jury found that he did this DELIBERATELY, and with design. That is what it looked like to me from the beginning, and I fulfilled my ethical duty as an attorney by reporting it to the county prosecutor.
If Charlie wants to be angry with citizens, bloggers and the media, he can find the person most responsible by just looking in a mirror.
Then there was the ballot commission hearing, Feb 24th. Where significant proof was provided to raise a red flag about a candidate; the candidate had no defense present, and yet with NO Proof of eligibility, was put on the ballot! Seems laws are flexible when in Indiana!
I am confident the truth will come out some day!
I hope you’re not talking about that Orly Taitz birther nonsense. She was making noises about how the President needed to show up and respond.
Wow, you’ve got some juice.
Make sure CW’s comments are backed up, in case there is a probation violation. I do not think that will happen, but I hope CW can move on with his professional and personal life.
Carlito, Charlie White was not placed on probation. The only way he could get in trouble now is to violate the terms of his home detention, and even that is not in effect, pending his appeal.
If Charlie is gonna be on home detention for a year, I expect he will have a whole lot of time to be posting on message boards. It should be fun to watch.
Charlie White needs to come to terms with the fact that unless and until the Court of Appeals holds otherwise, he is a convicted felon and the crimes of which he was convicted included a component of intent. Moreover, given that his own words in that notorious Fox interview came back to haunt him, perhaps he ought to think carefully about his words going forward. It appears to me that we’re dealing with a man without remorse and who would rather lash out and blame anyone and everyone for his own bad decisions and wrongdoing.
On another note: It’s Oscar time. A favorite Best Movie of many is “Gladiator”. Are we not entertained?
While White was awaiting trial and the civil and administrative cases, was he in the SOS office working on SOS functions? If he wasn’t working at the SOS office or on SOS business but instead was preparing for trials and hearings (outside the SOS office during normal working hours), was he receiving his SOS pay? Does anyone know?
I’m pretty sure he was working as SoS at least until the verdict in this case. Might have taken some “time off”, but I’d imagine that to be managerial personal/vacation time.