Court Opinion

ID: 9737964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:38:39.63663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.622901
License: Public Domain

Concurring
DeBruler, J.
The basic issue presented by this appeal is whether Article 15, § 3, of the Constitution of Indiana applies to officers of municipal corporations. If it does apply, then the General Assembly may not constitutionally create a vacancy in the office of a municipal corporation as a result of a tie vote in an election. If it does not apply then no such limitation on.the power of the General Assembly exists. I concur with the resolution of this issue in the affirmative and arrive at this conclusion from what I consider to be the clearest and most obvious meaning of the words of the provision itself and the holding of State ex rel. Jett, et al. v. Ives, et al. (1906), 167 Ind. 13, 78 N. E. 225, and the supporting cases cited in. it.
*420I do not, however, agree with the analysis and lack of weight given by the majority to the case of State ex rel. May v. Hall (1909), 173 Ind. 145, 89 N. E. 855. In my judgment this case is directly on point with the case on appeal and fully supports appellants’ position that Article 15, § 3, does not create a limitation upon the power of the General Assembly to create a vacancy in a municipal office following a tie vote as it did in Burns’ § 48-1246, and that case is, therefore, in direct conflict with the Ives case and our holding today. I, therefore, conceive the Ives and Hall cases to be irreconcilable and the effect of our opinion today to be the overruling of the Hall case.
In the event an incumbent municipal office holder, who was not a candidate to continue in office and consequently for whom no one voted, holds over following a tie vote, the termination of his term can be brought about by the election of a successor in a special election called for that purpose.
Note. — Reported in 254 N. E. 2d 868.