 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).
Comments are closed.
|
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! |
||