UPDATE: Recount panel finds White eligible for office

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Embattled Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White avoided public ouster Tuesday, only to stare down what could be his toughest test yet: possible jail time.

The Indiana Recount Commission cleared the Republican of political wrongdoing and found he had been eligible to run for office last year, despite Democrats' contention that he had committed voter fraud.

But White still faces a criminal trial beginning Aug. 8 on voter fraud charges and perjury. A conviction on any of the seven counts against him would be enough to oust him from office. A loss in court could put White in jail, something the Recount Commission couldn't do.

But both sides in the criminal trial agreed that Tuesday's win wouldn't cut White any slack in Hamilton Superior Court.

"I just think it's a completely different type of a situation," said special prosecutor John Dowd. He noted that White's case now would be heard by a jury of 12 citizens rather than three political appointees.

"It's a different proceeding, and a different burden of proof, which is on us. But it's different evidence, too," he said.

Dennis Zahn, the defense attorney representing White in the criminal case, agreed the commission's vote Tuesday would have little bearing on what happens in court.

"I don't believe the recount commission decision is in any way binding on the Superior Court of Hamilton County," he said. "They're just two different worlds, if you will."

The Recount Commission's panel of two Republicans and one Democrat voted unanimously Tuesday that White had been eligible to run for office in 2010, rebuffing a Democratic challenge to his candidacy based on the allegation that he had illegally registered to vote at his ex-wife's address when he also had a condo with his then-fiancée.

Democrats said they would review the finding and decide whether to file an appeal.

Commission members said they wrestled with the legal question of intent, and concluded that the Democrats couldn't disprove White's claim that he had stayed at his ex-wife's house but intended to move into the condo after he got married — which he did.

But Commission Chairman Thomas Wheeler scolded White for skirting the edge of the law.

"I think you were treading on the line," Wheeler, a Republican, told White at the end of the two-hour hearing.

Testifying before the commission last week, White said his voter registration troubles were a mistake stemming from a complicated personal life in which he was trying to help raise his 10-year-old son, plan his second marriage and campaign for the state's top elections job.

Wheeler and Democratic commissioner Bernard Pylitt said the case showed that Indiana campaign laws hadn't kept pace with modern life and should take into account the sometimes fluid living arrangements of the modern family.

"The problem is these laws are antiquated ... they don't reflect our current society," Wheeler said.

White agreed at an impromptu news conference in his office after the hearing.

"We have a lot of statutes that do not reflect how our society is today," he said. "I think there's a lot of room for legislative change ... because the world as it is today ... is not the world it was two decades ago when it comes to people who are blending their families and putting their children first."

White said he was relieved by the commission's vote but declined to respond to Wheeler's scolding. However, he made it clear that he felt persecuted by Democrats.

"I never thought in a million years that politics would get so personal and dirty," White said.

The state Democratic Party chairman made it clear he disagreed with the commission's decision.

"I believe that from a layman's perspective, not a lawyer's, his ex-wife's house was a hotel and he checked in there a couple of nights a week. So what this commission is saying is that you can register to vote at a temporary location if you're sleeping there a couple of nights a week," Dan Parker said. "So watch out for all these people who are going to register at a Holiday Inn Express."

Parker said it was clear that White had intended to live in the condo but registered to vote at his ex-wife's address so he could keep his seat on the Fishers Town Council. Democratic attorney Karen Celestino-Horseman said he used his dual addresses to his advantage, claiming the condo on loan and other documents but claiming his ex-wife's address when it came time to vote.

The state Democratic Party had wanted the Recount Commission to find that White should be replaced by Democrat Vop Osili, whom White defeated by a large margin last November.


  • And the whiner - er, winner...
    I was listening to the radio this morning, and someone pointed out that the proper time for the Dems to have objected was before, not after, the election. So, I say Shaddup!. My thought is, if the recount commission has validated the election results, doesn't that make at least some - if not all - of the criminal charges moot?
  • I didn't intend to get caught
    There seems to be something missing in this story. White said he was registered at the wrong address ... but he didn't intend to break a law. His job will be to watch election law. Does this mean he will not call a violation if they tell him they did not mean to violate? Or is just that he did not mean to get caught? If White keeps this job we had all better watch his record of challanges.
  • Finally
    I find it extremely disheartening that Dan Parker would say these things about the decision of the Recount Commission. He hand picked Buddy Pylitt, a former judge who is above reproach, for this position on the Recount Commission.

    When his own party's representative looked at all the legal issues and saw that there was not fraud involved, you would think Mr. Parker would say something to the effect of "I don't agree with the decision but will abide by the ruling." Instead he chose to sling more mud. This says more about Mr. Parker's character than words can muster.

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