 I’ve been struggling with our new procedure for appointing commission members in our city. Council members receive a short bio of nominees before the meeting, and when it comes time to vote, there is no opportunity to ask candidates questions. Often, nominees are not even present. I believe this is a missed opportunity for them to introduce themselves to the council, the city, and the people they seek to serve.
The recent appointment of Scott Ballard to the redevelopment commission highlighted these frustrations. The meeting became heated as some council members voiced concerns about the selection process. Mr. Ballard was absent from the council meeting, reinforcing the feeling that council members were expected to approve nominees. The same issue arose at Tuesday’s meeting when three nominees for the human rights commission were presented. Again, council members were provided only brief bios, and no opportunity was given to meet the nominees or ask them questions. Two of the nominees were not even in attendance. I want to be clear: my concerns are not a reflection on the nominees themselves. I appreciate the individuals who volunteer their time to serve on these commissions because they care about our community. My vote against the nominees on Tuesday was not about their qualifications but rather about the process by which these appointments are made. I knew my vote would not prevent their selection, but it was important for me to show that we need to improve the process. I commend Frank Miller for his efforts in organizing working groups to select commission nominees and for his dedication as city council president. However, I do not believe council members should be shut out of the process of meeting nominees and asking them questions. Our vote matters—it should not feel like a mere formality. The response from The Republic was particularly interesting. I have voted against several items in the past, but this is the first time I've been asked about any particular decision. Is a ‘yes’ vote for the human rights commission the only acceptable choice? Every city department should be subject to scrutiny, and human rights should be no exception. As elected officials, we have a duty to ask questions on behalf of the residents we represent. With recent vacancies and difficulties in maintaining the required number of members on the human rights commission, shouldn't we ask why? Are there issues that need to be addressed? Is the commission growing and changing with the needs of the community? Are we just doing things because that’s the way it’s always been done? These are the kinds of questions council members should be asking about all city departments. My vote was not about opposition for opposition’s sake. It was about wanting our process of selecting nominees to be better. I am confident we can work together for more transparency in this process. That's a vote we can all agree on. For an accurate, unbiased report on my case, please see this article written by Indiana Capital Chronicle and picked up by Yahoo! News: A yearslong legal battle over a Columbus City Council member’s candidacy sparked a sharp exchange Thursday between Indiana’s Supreme Court justices and Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chair Ross Thomas.
At issue in the underlying case was Thomas’ 2023 challenge against Republican Joseph “Jay” Foyst, which alleged Foyst’s candidacy in that year’s municipal election was invalid because the Bartholomew County GOP missed the deadline to file notice for a party caucus with the clerk’s office.  My attorney, Jay Hoffman prepares to give his arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court.  This Court has consistently held that statutes governing ballot access must be read in a manner that upholds constitutional principles and does not unduly burden candidates. My attorneys have filed a brief in response to the State Democrat Party Amicus Brief. The response primarily asserts three points: The Issue of Standing and Judicial Estoppel First and foremost, the plaintiff, Ross G. Thomas, lacks the legal standing to challenge my candidacy. He has no personal stake in the matter and no authority to represent the public interest in this case. Additionally, Thomas previously stipulated in court that I was a valid candidate. Now, in a complete reversal, he seeks to argue the opposite. This is a clear case of judicial estoppel, a legal principle that prevents parties from contradicting their prior sworn statements to gain a legal advantage. As stated in our brief, "A party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, is prohibited from thereafter assuming an inconsistent position, especially if it results in an unfair advantage." Thomas cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, under the invited error doctrine, a party that has taken a specific legal position in court cannot later challenge the consequences of that position. By his own admissions, Thomas has already conceded the validity of my candidacy. The Filing Deadline Argument The amicus brief claims that because my initial filing was submitted one day late, my nomination should be declared void ab initio (invalid from the beginning). This argument is both legally flawed and inconsistent with established precedent. A missed filing deadline does not amount to an automatic disqualification. As my attorneys noted in the brief, "Ohio law recognizes that mere technical deficiencies do not necessarily invalidate a candidacy, particularly where there is no evidence of fraud or intent to deceive." Disqualifying factors include failing to meet residency requirements, felony convictions, or citizenship status—none of which apply here. A late filing is a procedural misstep, not a fundamental disqualifier. The Right to Renominate The Democratic Party’s brief also suggests that my renomination was improper. However, there is no legal basis for this assertion. If a political party chooses to renominate a candidate, there is no law preventing them from doing so—especially when the original issue was purely procedural. The amicus brief fails to cite any legal precedent supporting their claim. As our filing states, "There is no statutory prohibition against a valid renomination process when the initial issue is solely one of timing and not of eligibility." The Bottom Line Our legal system is built to ensure fairness, not to let technicalities override the democratic process. As my attorneys rightfully argue, "The fundamental principle of democratic elections is that voters, not legal loopholes, should decide who represents them." You can read the full brief below. The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for March 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Please consider making a donation to help defray the legal costs in defending my case. 
 "The purpose of [election] law and the efforts of the court are to secure to the elector an opportunity to freely and fairly cast his ballot, and to uphold the will of the electorate and prevent disfranchisement.” (State ex rel. Harry v. Ice, 191 N.E. 155, 157 (Ind. 1934))  Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita Indiana Attorney General, Todd Rokita, has submitted an amicus brief in support of my case. Here's a summary: Attorney General Rokita argues that Thomas lacks standing because he has not shown any personal injury, as required by Indiana law. Courts should not intervene in election disputes based on general public interest alone. If the Court addresses the merits, it should affirm that political parties can renominate candidates after procedural errors, as Indiana’s election laws allow multiple paths for correction. Finally, the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the 2023 election results. Overturning elections is only justified when voters knowingly elect an ineligible candidate, which did not occur. The Indiana Supreme Court should reverse the decision. You can read the full brief below. The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for March 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Please consider making a donation to help defray the legal costs in defending my case.
 The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for March 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The Court has invited amicus briefings in regards to my case, specifically naming the Attorney General's office. Amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs are briefs written by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision. The deadline for briefs is January 31, 2025 (See here to read court order). If you need to get up to speed on my journey to the Indiana Supreme Court, you can do so by going here, here, here, here, here, and here. I've had people ask me how they can submit an amicus brief to the court on my behalf. I continue to be humbled and grateful for this kind of support. However, my attorney, David Stone, has said the court is looking for legal insight that will help them render a decision. If you'd like to help, please consider making a small donation to help defray legal costs by clicking on the Donate Button below.  When all the calculations were done, they found the safest small city in the country is Columbus, Indiana. (NEXSTAR) — If you’re ready to trade in car break-ins and police sirens for a slice of small-town living, you may want to set your sights on the quaint communities of New England or the quirky architecture mecca of Indiana.
MoneyGeek, a personal finance site, had researchers analyze last year’s FBI crime data of more than 1,000 small towns and cities where the population is between 30,000 and 100,000.  Amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs are briefs written by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision. The Indiana Supreme Court says it intends to schedule oral argument in March and is inviting the Attorney General to contribute a brief, which means they are taking our appeal seriously.   The opinion, if allowed to stand, would serve only to thwart the will of the 454 voters who chose Mr. Foyst to represent them on the Columbus City Council.  Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court Dear Friends, Here's an update on an important legal development regarding my candidacy for the Columbus City Council seat for District 6. As many of you know, there has been an ongoing dispute concerning my eligibility, which has now been taken to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here’s a summary of the key issues we are addressing: 1. Key Questions for Review: - Validity of Candidacy: We are challenging the appellate court's decision that invalidated my candidacy due to a missed filing deadline. This case could set a precedent for how we handle ballot vacancies and whether minor procedural errors should affect election outcomes. - Conflict with Precedent: We question whether the appellate court's decision conflicts with existing Indiana Supreme Court precedents by ruling that I was not a candidate, despite meeting the necessary criteria. - Respecting Voter Choice: We argue that the appellate court's ruling undermines the principle of respecting voters' choices by focusing too much on procedural issues rather than the substantive outcome of the election. 2. Background Information: - Challenge Details: On July 26, 2023, my candidacy was challenged due to a late notice of caucus. The County Election Board upheld this challenge. - Filing and Nomination: Despite the challenge, I filed the required paperwork on August 24, 2023, was re-nominated by the Republican Party on August 29, and won the election on November 7, 2023. - Court Decisions: Although the trial court ruled in my favor, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring my candidacy void and awarding the seat to my opponent, Bryan Muñoz.* 3. Our Arguments: - On Candidacy Validity: We argue that the appellate court misinterpreted the rules by declaring my candidacy void due to the missed deadline. I was an effective candidate despite the delay, and minor procedural issues, like the clerk’s office closure, should not disqualify me. - On Official Status: We assert that the plaintiff’s judicial acknowledgment of my candidacy should be considered binding, and that the court wrongly ignored this acknowledgment. - On Voter Disenfranchisement: We argue that disqualifying me based on procedural issues disenfranchised the voters who chose me, especially given their awareness of the legal challenge. In summary, our petition to the Indiana Supreme Court seeks to address these concerns by advocating for procedural fairness, respect for voters' choices, and a proper interpretation of election laws. The ruling, in our view, ignored the voters' choice and should not be based solely on technicalities. If you would like to support me in this fight to defend your vote, please go to my Donate page to find out how you can contribute. Thank you for your continued support as we navigate this crucial issue. Sincerely, 
*According to reports, Mr. Munoz claims residency in District 6 with a "close family friend," even though he has sold his home in Columbus and is renting a place in Fishers. Indiana law requires that candidates live in their district both at the time of the election and throughout their term. The appellate court has instructed the lower court to declare Mr. Munoz the winner, but if he’s found ineligible, Mr. Thomas, the Plaintiff and Democrat Party Chair, says his party will select someone to represent the people of District 6 (See Motion to Stay).
 Following the recent appellate court decision, I made the difficult choice to abstain from attending Columbus City Council meetings. This decision was intended to avoid any potential chaos or distraction during city business as my attorneys and I determined our next steps.
With the case now submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court, my attorney, David Stone, has recommended that I resume my attendance at council meetings. For the past few weeks, the constituents of District 6 have been without representation, which I believe is unacceptable. I plan to resume attendance on Tuesday, September 17, barring any decision from the court that would prohibit my doing so. I am committed to fulfilling my duties and ensuring that the people of District 6 have a voice in our council’s proceedings.   My attorney, Jay Hoffman, has filed a Motion to Stay due to new information that shows Mr. Munoz no longer lives in District 6. The motion states:
You can download and read the entire motion below.
  The bowling fundraiser held on Saturday, June 8th at Columbus Bowling Center to help defray attorney costs associated with the democrat party's challenge to my candidacy was such a fun time. I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers for me and my family as we have navigated through this legal challenge. You can find out about where we are in the appellate process and read the brilliant brief submitted by my attorneys, David Stone and Jay Hoffman, here.                     This appeal is an attempt by Mr. Thomas the chairman of the Bartholomew County Democrat party to disenfranchise the 454 voters who voted for Mr. Foyst to represent them as their councilman. My attorneys filed a response to the Democratic Chair, Ross Thomas' appeal of Judge Lloyd's decision to deny Thomas' claim that I was ineligible to run for the District 6 city council seat. You can read the summation of the sequence of events going back to last summer when Thomas initially made his challenge to the Bartholomew County Election Board here and here. You can download a copy of the brief below. My attorney, Jay Hoffman, has advised me it could take up to 4-5 months for a decision to be made. In the meantime, I will continue to serve the people of District 6.
  I attended the State of the City address held on Tuesday, March 6 at NexusPark. The evening comprised of Mayor Mary Ferdon giving her remarks followed by a ribbon-cutting in the field house. One of the things the mayor talked about was the need for a new animal shelter. Plans are currently being revised to bring down construction costs. I serve on the Animal Care Commission. The next commission meeting will be held on Monday, March 11. To read about the State of the City Address, see more here.  NexusPark Ribbon Cutting   NexusPark held its donor appreciation reception on Monday, February 5. There was a toast and group picture. The evening ended with Columbus Express Soccer team playing their first games in the field house.  City Council will hear a second reading on rezoning of the property at 11th & Washington. The meeting starts at 6p.m. You can download the agenda here.
 Overlooking the soccer field and baseball diamonds with Columbus Park and Recreation Director Mark Jones  Basketball Courts Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Jones took me on a tour of NexusPark on Friday, January 26.
It was great to see it from the inside, after years of driving past it. NexusPark will serve as a community and destination facility, for sports, meetings, functions, shopping, dining and a medical facility. There is also a fitness center. I like how the planners of NexusPark and CRH were able to combine their ideas to create a seamless space that is architecturally beautiful as well as functional. You can follow the progress of NexusPark here. An open house is planned for mid-April. Click "Read More" to view a complete gallery of photos of the tour.   I attended the CRH at NexusPark open house on Tuesday, January 23. There was a brief presentation followed by a self-guided tour. Columbus Pediatrics, Sandcrest Family Medicine, and Doctors Park Family Medicine are just a few of the practices which will begin seeing patients. Tours will be given all week. I hope you can take the time to check it out.  Photo: Pixabay This case involves mostly undisputed facts, and ultimately the legal conclusion turns on matters of statutory interpretation. The legislature is presumed to act intentionally, and the analysis is nonpartisan. Plaintiffs request to declare the Defendant ineligible as candidate for the Columbus City Common Council, District 6, is DENIED. For those who have been following the lawsuit that was filed against me concerning my run for city council, you can download a copy of Judge Lloyd's decision.
 Photo Credit: The Republic I attended the meeting hosted by The Historic Downtown Neighborhood Association held last Wednesday at First Presbyterian Church. I appreciated hearing the questions and concerns of those interested in the historic houses and how the space may change downtown. It was helpful hearing from Rick Sprague and Hutch Shumaker about the current state of the houses. What I heard is that both houses are beyond repair. Mr. Sprague said the house he owns had been completely stripped and gutted inside by vandals. He has looked into moving the house, which he says would cost more than $100,000 to move two blocks. Mr. Shumaker stated Joe Willy's is suffering from structural damage. He said he plans to salvage as much as possible from the interior of the house, including the staircase. Whatever money he generates from the sale, he will donate to the restoration of Crump Theater. In regards to the city council meeting on Tuesday, the 16th, the question before the council is in regards to rezoning that land from commercial neighborhood to commercial downtown. City Planner Jeff Bergman explained at the meeting that the process entails a first and second vote. If the city council passes the first vote, city planners will then determine the feasibility of the rezoning then will bring the zoning change proposal for a second vote. This item is to assess the zoning of the property for future use only, whether it be Rubicon Development or someone else. Most of the properties surrounding the 11th and Washington Streets space are already zoned commercial downtown. I invite you to attend the city council meeting on Tuesday to listen in and voice your opinion
 Swearing-in ceremony held January 1 at Columbus City Hall. Photo Credit: Richard Gold It was a thrill being sworn in as your city councilor on January 1. I'm already gearing up for what's on the slate for the upcoming city council meetings. My immediate goals are to continue to learn the ropes of procedures and get acclimated to my newly appointed board positions. Currently, I'm serving on Animal Care Commission, Capital Improvements, Community Police Review Board and Parks and Rec Foundation.
At the swearing-in, I briefly mentioned the court challenge. We're still awaiting Judge Lloyd's decision. For a recap, you can read about it here.  Delivering Christmas Dinner. Thanks to Chris Rutan and The 9th Street Neighborhood Watch. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)  From L to R: Chris Bartels, Mary Ferdon, Kent Anderson, Jay Foyst, Josh Burnett, LuAnn Welmer I'm honored and humbled to be elected as your councilor for District 6. Knocking on doors and meeting many of you was a wonderful experience. I feel prepared and confident to serve you and our great city. Thank you!  |
AuthorI was born and raised in Columbus, and I've spent the last 24 years living and working here. I love our city, and together we can keep it great! |
||||||||||||||
