Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Bartholomew County Republican Party failed to file a notice of caucus in a timely manner for one of its 2023 Columbus City Council candidates and his candidacy should be nullified, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in reversing a lower court’s decision.
With the reversal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions to declare Democrat Bryan Muñoz the winner of the 2023 general election for the council’s District 6 seat.
According to court records, the Bartholomew County Republican Party did not place a candidate on the ballot for the 2023 primary election for the council seat.
The party held a caucus and selected Joseph Foyst to fill that vacancy on the general election ballot.
But the notice of caucus was not timely submitted to the Bartholomew County Circuit Court Clerk, and Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chairman Ross Graham Thomas challenged Foyst’s eligibility to appear on the general election ballot on that basis.
After a hearing, the Bartholomew County Election Board granted Thomas’s challenge.
After the statutory deadline for filling a vacancy on the general election ballot passed, the party held another caucus and again selected Foyst to fill the vacancy under an exception to the statute that allows for the filling of a vacancy that is due to the successful challenge of a candidate.
Thomas filed another challenge to Foyst’s eligibility, which was refused as untimely.
Thomas also filed a complaint against Foyst for declaratory relief, and the Bartholomew Circuit Court ruled in Foyst’s favor. In the general election, Foyst received more votes than his opponent, Muñoz.
On appeal, Thomas argues that Foyst’s candidacy should be nullified because the notice of caucus was not timely submitted.
The appellate court agreed.
Judge Terry Crone wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
Crone wrote the clerk was barred by statute from receiving both the notice of caucus and the certificate of candidate selection because both documents were not timely filed.
“The Clerk’s actions in violation of the applicable statutes were, by definition, ultra vires, and thus Foyst’s candidacy never existed in the eyes of the law. Consequently, Indiana Code Section 3-13-1-7(b)(7) could not be used to place Foyst on the general election ballot; the statute presumes that a vacancy exists due to the successful challenge of a duly selected candidate, and Foyst was never a candidate,” Crone wrote.
The case is Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 24A-MI-251.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.