Published: June 19, 2009 05:02 pm         

TRIBUNE-STAR EDITORIAL: The will of the people prevails in election case

Court’s unanimous ruling embraces common sense

When the intrigue, tension and emotion of the 2007 Terre Haute mayoral race and its steamy aftermath was finally blown away, a simple concept rose to the surface and won the day.

The scales of justice tipped toward the will of the people. Common sense prevailed.

The Indiana Supreme Court left no doubt last week as to its attitude and philosophy in dealing with election challenges. It ruled that Duke Bennett, who won the election over incumbent Kevin Burke by a mere 110 votes, should indeed be the rightful occupant of the Terre Haute mayor’s office. Whether he violated the complex tenets of the Hatch Act, a federal law limiting the political activity of people who work for government or nonprofit organizations that receive federal funds, should not be a factor in a person’s eligibility to take office once the election is over. The challenge should have come, the ruling argued, when Bennett was still a candidate.

But the key factor in the ruling called upon fundamental precepts of law in our democratic system. Those precepts provide the muscle that give this resolution strength and legal standing.

Justice Brent Dickson, who wrote the six-page unanimous decision for the five-member court, called upon the “long-standing respect for the right of the people to free and equal elections and the reluctance of this court to remove from office a person duly elected by the voters.”

The decision cited a precedent established in a 1958 ruling that stated that the “will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by any merely formal or technical objections.”

Bennett, while a candidate for mayor, was working as an operations director for Hamilton Center, a regional mental health organization that provides Head Start services to clients. Head Start is a federally funded program. Burke argued that Bennett was not eligible to run for political office because he was subject to the Hatch Act.

Had Burke launched his challenge during the election campaign, he may have been able to get Bennett disqualified. By waiting until after the election, the high court ruled it was too late. At that point, the will of the people took precedent.

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court reversed an appeals court decision that declared Bennett ineligible to take office and called for a new election. In doing so, the court affirmed an earlier ruling from Vigo Superior Court Judge David Bolk.

Bolk could easily have dodged this politically explosive case. Instead, he tackled it aggressively and delivered a sound ruling that eventually stood the test of state Supreme Court scrutiny.

There are larger lessons to be learned from this case. Candidates for public office should take the responsibility to determine their own eligibility, and any candidate or political party who questions the eligibility of an opponent should make that challenge in a timely manner.

Burke has stated that while he disagrees with the court ruling, he accepts it and will not pursue the case further. We commend him for that position. It is in the community’s best interest to move on.

Bennett, meanwhile, has a big job ahead of him managing the city during tough economic times. He deserves the opportunity to serve as mayor without unnecessary distractions. The resolution of this election challenge should provide him that.