IBJNews

  • Home

Indiana delays discipline against ex-election chief

Associated Press
November 5, 2012
Keywords
Government, Government & Economic Development, Law, Legal Issues
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to delay disciplinary action against former Secretary of State Charlie White.

The state disciplinary commission suspended White's law license in April following his February conviction on felony charges including vote fraud, perjury and theft. White was removed from office due to the convictions.

Last week, the Supreme Court granted White's request to stay further disciplinary action until all of his appeals have been completed.

The charges stemmed from using his ex-wife's address as his voting address when he was serving on the Fishers Town Council and running for secretary of state in 2010.

White's sentence of a year on home detention has been stayed while he appeals his convictions.

White didn't return phone calls and emails seeking comment Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Charlie White
    D.C. RoseNovember 6, 2012 2:31 PM
    Charlie White and his family have suffered enough as a result of his ordeal. He has lost his career. He stands to lose his livelihood. Are these consequences and potential consequences not severe enough? The punishement does not fit the crime. This is a man with a family. What will extraction of another pound of flesh solve? It is time for some compassion.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • No More Spending
    DonnyNovember 6, 2012 1:13 PM
    If you haven't voted already I urge you not to send another big spending liberal to Washington like Donnelly. Our nation is too broke and most constantly borrow and spend just to stay alive. We need someone like Mourdock to go in who has the courage to make real spending cuts.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT