« Ind. Law - What to call the two Indiana University law schools now? | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP) »

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Courts of Appeals affirms Muncie Mayor Sharon McShurley's election

From the Muncie Star-Press:

Mayor Sharon McShurley prevailed Thursday over Democrat James Mansfield in an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling that challenged her 2007 election.
Advertisement

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision that denied Mansfield’s effort to hold a special election for disenfranchised voters in Precinct 46 where absentee ballots were thrown out.

“I am happy to read this,” said Indianapolis attorney David Brooks, who represents McShurley, after reading the opinion issued Thursday morning.

Key to the appeals court’s decision was that Mansfield never alleged any circumstance that made it impossible to determine who received the most legal votes. * * *

William Groth, the Indianapolis attorney who represents Mansfield, said the court of appeals made its best judgment based on the law that exists.

“There are unanswered, legal questions that are suitable for resolution by the supreme court,” said Groth, who said it would be up to Mansfield as to whether he would pursue further legal challenges.

The decision is in the case of Jim Mansfield and State ex rel. Mansfield v. Sharon McShurley and Delaware Co., Indiana Election Board..

Judge May begins the 17-page ruling:

Jim Mansfield was initially declared the winner of the election for mayor of Muncie, but after a recount Sharon McShurley was declared the winner. Mansfield challenged that result, but his case was dismissed because he did not bring his action within fourteen days of the election as required by Indiana statute. Mansfield next filed a complaint in quo warranto to challenge the exclusion of some ballots by election officials. That action was dismissed after the trial court found Mansfield‟s allegation of a “mistake” in the counting of improperly-initialed ballots did not amount to an allegation of an unlawful act that could be redressed by a quo warranto action. Mansfield also alleged fraud, but the trial court found his allegations were insufficiently specific. We affirm the trial court.
The Court denied " McShurley‟s argument on cross-appeal she is entitled to attorneys fees as a sanction against Mansfield," stating:
We affirm the trial court because Mansfield presented legitimatearguments before both this court and the trial court. * * * [T]he record in the case before us reflects the initial election showed more voters cast ballots for Mansfield than for McShurley. The final election result turned on the exclusion of the ballots that were not properly initialed by election officials. We accordingly reject McShurley‟s allegations there was anything “absurd . . . and irrational,” (McShurley Br. at 35), about Mansfield‟s complaints, or that they were “a sham,” (id.), or “flagrantly frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless,” (id. at 35-36). McShurley is not entitled to attorneys fees.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 28, 2009 01:04 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions