Opinion ID: 853859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clear on Its Face?

Text: If a statute is unambiguous, then courts must apply the plain language . . . despite perhaps strong policy or constitutional reasons to construe the statute in some other way. BAPAC, 943 F.Supp. at 986 (citing Indiana Dep't. of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870, 872 (Ind. 1994)); Grody v. State, 257 Ind. 651, 659, 278 N.E.2d 280, 285 (1972). Moreover, when a statute is unambiguous, a court must apply the plain and obvious meaning and not resort to other rules of construction. Eason v. Grissom, 587 N.E.2d 114, 116 (Ind.1992). A statute is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. In re Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind.1997). BAPAC argues that our statute is not ambiguous, and that influence plainly and obviously covers more than express advocacy. To support its argument, BAPAC points to the definition of influence in Black's Law Dictionary 779 (6th ed. 1990): To affect, modify or act upon by physical, mental or moral power, especially in some gentle, subtle, and gradual way. As the District Court said, [I]ssue advocacy, such as publicizing, praising, or criticizing candidates' views on particular issues, is often intended to influence an election, at least in some subtle way. . . . BAPAC, 943 F.Supp. at 985-86. We admit that, at first blush, influence does appear to touch issue advocacy. In the words of the District Court, if this case had come to this court on a clean slate, [BAPAC's] arguments might have had considerable force. . . . In this case, however, the slate is far from clean. Id. at 986.