IBJNews

Elections board: Lugar must register elsewhere in county

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An elections board ruled Thursday that U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar can't vote at the Indianapolis home he sold in 1977 but can register elsewhere in the county, a partial victory for tea party activists who allege the Republican incumbent has committed voter fraud for decades.

Marion County's Board of Elections voted 2-1 along party lines to disqualify Lugar from voting at the home, but the ruling does not remove Lugar from the May primary ballot. Lugar can fix the problem by registering at another address in Indianapolis, such as the farm he owns.

"I've got a lot of respect for Sen. Lugar, but we've got to follow this law here," said Mark Sullivan, Democratic chairman of the board. The law is clear that Lugar can still run for office; the narrow question of whether he can vote in Indianapolis' 29th precinct was the only question decided today, Sullivan said.

Monica Boyer, co-founder of the tea party umbrella group Hoosiers for Conservative Senate, made a reference to Indiana's unofficial state song following the court's ruling.

"We hope our senator finally gets a residence in the state, and we will welcome him 'Back Home Again in Indiana' when he arrives!" Boyer said.

Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher called it was a partisan ruling by Democrats. He says lawyers are reviewing whether to appeal. Lugar's staff cited a pair of attorney general opinions which supported Lugar's decision to keep voting from his former Indianapolis address.

"Since Senator Lugar took office, he and Mrs. Lugar have scrupulously complied with Indiana law, which preserves the residency of Hoosiers serving their state and country outside of Indiana. The Lugars have also sought and followed the express direction of every legitimate government authority to have addressed the question," Fisher said in a statement.

The Indiana Election Division upheld Lugar's appearance on the Republican primary ballot in the face of a similar challenge from tea party groups last month. The board voted 3-1 that Lugar's living in Virginia while serving the state as senator meant he could still claim his former Indianapolis address to qualify for the ballot.

Questions about Lugar's residency have become a major problem for the veteran senator as he faces his toughest re-election battle since first going to Washington in 1977. The residency issue lingered in Indiana's conservative blogosphere for more than a year before it gained traction a few months ago with help from Greg Wright, a certified fraud examiner and Democrats who saw an opportunity to hammer Lugar.

Lugar's Republican primary opponent, state treasurer Richard Mourdock, quickly jumped on the board's ruling Thursday.

"It's sad that Senator Lugar had to be instructed by the Marion County Election Board that he must maintain an actual home in the state he represents in the U.S. Senate," Mourdock said in a statement. Mourdock previously held a press conference outside Lugar's former home and called for Lugar to establish another residence in Indiana.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Huh?
    "Partial victory?" The Petitioner received 100% of what he asked for.

    And the Board did not say that Lgar could just simply re-register some place else. It still has to be a place that he intends to return to following his service in the Senate.

    As far as the challenge in front of the Election Commission, it wasn't a "similiar challenge." That was a challenge to whether Lugar was an "inhabitant" of the State of Indiana as required by Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. In that case, the Commission couldn't strike Lugar because he had time - until the election to become an inhabitant of Indiana and the Senate determines that not the Commission

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT