Judge to hear argument in White election challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County judge is set to hear arguments over whether Republican Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White is legally qualified to serve in the office to which he was elected in November.

A hearing in the case is set for Wednesday in Marion Circuit Court in Indianapolis.

Democrats say White committed voter fraud and was ineligible to run or serve as secretary of state. They filed a lawsuit claiming the state recount commission improperly dismissed their challenge to his election in December.

Democrats say state law requires runner-up Vop Osili to take office if a judge rules White was ineligible.

The dispute stems from accusations that White voted in last May's Republican primary after moving from the address listed on his voter registration.

A separate Aug. 8 trial date awaits White, who was indicted by a Hamilton County grand jury based on claims that he lied about his address on several documents. White entered a not guilty plea to the charges, which include voter fraud and perjury.


  • Take out the trash
    We need accountability in government. Letting a sleaze ball like White slip through would be a major disservice to the people of Indiana. His lack of knowledge of the Indiana election process and his intentionally fraudulent OR negligent voting record are clear illustrations of his inability to perform as the head of the Indiana election process.

    The people of this state deserve much better. Don't settle and don't play politics with this. We are talking about an important job. If the state were a company this guy would have never been hired. The board would have seen the controversy and his bad record directly related to his area of responsibility and never considered hiring him.

    I wouldn't hire a baby sitter who has a history of child abuse (negligent or otherwise)... And I also wouldn't hire an election official who has a history of voting abuse (negligent or otherwise).


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.