I have just received an email from William Groth, attorney for the Indiana Democratic Party. He reports:
The Indianapolis Star's article that you reference in your blog of today is incorrect. The court of appeals denied in part my clients' motion to stay, but it cannot be inferred by that ruling that the court "agreed" that Laplante should be on the ballot, not does it necessarily mean, as The Star reports, that the court "agreed" with Judge Miller in the Marion County action that Lee had moved out of the district in time. In fact, Miller had no evidence before him as to Lee's purported move, and the court's ruling on the stay cannot be read to imply any "agreement" with any of Miller's rulings or an implied finding that Judge Miller even possessed jurisdiction to make such a ruling, given the pendency of the earlier-filed Vigo action.Posted by Marcia Oddi at October 27, 2004 12:31 PMA more plausible explanation is that the appellate court simply decided that there was insufficient time remaining between now and election day to do justice to, and render a final ruling on, the merits of the issues presented on appeal, including the jurisdictional issue, and that the ruling yesterday simply represents a pragmatic decision to wait until after the election to decide those issues, which might by then have become moot.
However, the appellate court's reticence to become involved in this matter before election day may be put to the test once again if Special Judge Johnson, who heard evidence yesterday in Vigo Superior Court that raised additional questions as to whether Lee was domiciled outside of the district even as of the filing date of his second withdrawal, were to agree with the plaintiffs and issue a preliminary injunction later today that Lee's second withdrawal also failed to create a ballot vacancy, thus setting up a potential conflict between the Marion and Vigo Superior Courts regarding the issue of who is the Republican Party's candidate and which one is to be listed on election day ballots. Stay tuned.