Judge Louis Rosenberg of the Marion Circuit Court entered an order reversing the Indiana Recount Commission, remanding it to the Recount Commission with instructions for them to declare Charlie White ineligible and to certify Vop Osili as the Secretary of State by virtue of him being the second highest vote recipient and only eligible candidate.
I literally have not read anything but the last paragraph of the decision because of work blowing up today.
Don’t forget what that ruling could mean for GOP ballot access in 2012…
Yet some people other than CW and his advisers do disagree with this. I’m not a lawyer so instead of a comment I have a question: What justifies their disagreement? Is it defensible?
So should we have thrown Bayh and Lugar out of office for voter fraud. Evan keeps voting in Indiana even though we resides out east and is a private citizen. Lets hope the Indiana supreme court nips this silliness in the bud. Do you think Evan or Richard could show any identification proving they reside in Indiana. Politics pure and simple if you throw Charlie out you need to throw Lugar out and arrest Evan and his wife when they commit voter fraud.
So apparently, you have to be a registered voter to run for public office?
Nevermind that. Actually Indiana Code does say you have to be a registered voter to run for office.
Doug,
I read the opinion. Judge Rosenberg did not try to reweigh the facts as I first presumed. However, he took a unique position that even the Democrats weren’t arguing. The Democrats had argued that White’s residence was the condo and he should have registered there. Judge Rosenberg acknowledged the evidence was that he was living at his ex-wife’s house and not the condo. But he concluded that the ex-wife’s house was a “temporary” stay and therefore not his “residence” under the voter registration law that requires that the living arrangement be “permanent.”
The problem with that interpretation is it leaves White without any place he could have called his residence. I think the judge is misinterpreting the residencey requirement. Everyone has a residence. If they are living somewhere temporarily, then there is some place else that is that person’s residence. Judge Rosenberg’s opinion says he didn’t have to decide that. I think he did…because the only conclusion would have been that White’s one residence was his ex-wife’s where he was living at the time. He registered and voted exactly where he should have.
Paul, you overlook that White more than once admitted he stayed/lived at the Overview condo (as early as November 2009), and said it was or would be his permanent residence, either at closing in February 2010, or later in May 2010 when he was married, either of which were before the filing deadline for candidacy. White had ample time to correct his registration prior to the candidacy deadline, and did not do so. I think it is clear, by White’s version or otherwise, that the Overview condo was White’s permanent residence for voting purposes at least by May 2010, if not earlier.
the idea that “everyone has a residence” is plainly false, or else there would be no such thing as homelessness. if white had no permanent residence then he was legally homeless and thus ineligible.
perhaps it is unfair that the homeless are ineligible for public office, but that’s how the statue is written.