Court Opinion

ID: 9714910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:48:57.584287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:17.539747
License: Public Domain

BAILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from my colleagues' opinion that Michael Cohen is qualified to hold an at-large position on the IPS Board, and I disagree with their determination that Indiana Code Section 20-25-3-4 provides no guidance for the cireumstances that occurred in this case.
The Majority concludes that the election results cannot satisfy both subsection (b) of the statute, which states that "[nlot more than two (2) of the members who serve on the board may reside in the same school board district," and subsection (e), which provides that a candidate "wins if the candidate receives the greatest number of votes of all the candidates for the position." Based on its conclusion that disenfranchisement is a greater evil than disproportionate representation and its reasoning that the statutory provision "later in position" controls, slip op. at 10, the Majority concludes that both Elizabeth Gore and Michael Cohen, who received the greatest number of votes cast in their respective at-large elections, should be seated by the IPS Board, despite the fact that this results in three members residing in the same district.
As my colleagues observed, the trial court resolved the perceived conflict by construing the word "may" in subsection (b) as discretionary, not mandatory. I concur with their rejection of that construction. As Judge Mathias writes: "the General Assembly intended that of the seven IPS Board members, no more than two members residing in the same IPS district may serve on the IPS Board at the same time." Slip op. at 9. I part ways with the Majority, however, in its refusal to give effect to this legislative enactment.
The anomaly at issue arose because one at-large school board member resigned before the expiration of his term, so normally staggered elections for at-large positions occurred on the same date. But I do not find it necessary to disregard the legislature's allocation of political power. Instead, I believe the legislature provided a solution in subsection (h) of the statute, which addresses vacancies, the genesis of this dispute. It reads:
In accordance with subsection (k), a vacancy in the board shall be filled temporarily by the board as soon as practicable after the vacancy occurs. The *1243member chosen by the board to fill a vacamey holds office until the member's successor is elected and qualified. The successor shall be elected at the next regular school board election occurring after the date on which the vacancy oceurs. The successor fills the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
1.C. 20-25-3-4(h) (emphasis added.)
The above-emphasized language is similar to that found in Article 15, Section 3 of the Indiana Constitution:
Whenever it is provided in this Constitution, or in any law which may be hereafter passed, that any officer, other than a member of the General Assembly, shall hold his office for any given term, the same shall be construed to mean, that such officer shall hold his office for such term, and until his successor shall have been elected and qualified.
(Emphasis added.) Our Supreme Court explained the provision as follows:
When the elective term ends and no qualified person has been elected and qualified to take over the duties of the office, the person holding the office at the end of the elective term has a right and duty, commanded by Art. 15, § 3 supra, to hold the office and discharge its duties "until his successor shall have been elected and qualified." This service is not a part of his elective term, but is a constitutional term granted to avoid a vacancy-and to assure an ever-continuing government in any and every emergency.
Swank v. Tyndall, 226 Ind. 204, 78 N.E.2d 535, 538 (1948).
In my opinion, the determination of whether a successor is qualified need not be determined only before an election. Rather, in certain cireumstances, a sucees-sor's qualifications can be examined post-election. See City of Evansville v. Brown, 171 Ind.App. 284, 356 N.E.2d 691 (1976) (litigating status of elected official who did not take oath of office and of incumbent defeated in election). And I do not limit that inquiry to whether a successor has taken an oath or filed a bond. As our Supreme Court stated in an early election contest case: "that the contestee was eligible to hold the office at the time he was elected{ ] will not authorize him to hold it after he became ineligible...." Jeffries v. Rowe, 63 Ind. 592, 594 (1878). Furthermore, the oath itself contains an assurance that the "member possesses all the qualifications required by this chapter for membership on the board[.]" Ind.Code § 20-25-8-3(c)(1).
Recently, our Supreme Court reviewed a claimant's qualifications both at the time of his election and also at the time he assumed office. Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529 (Ind., 2009). The Burke Court acknowledged that the Indiana election contest action permits a post-election challenge to an "ineligible" winning candidate. Id., at 581 (citing I.C. § 3-12-8-1 and -8-2(1)). The Court continued:
an election contest petition must state that the person elected "does not comply with the specific constitutional or statutory requirement set forth in the petition that is applicable to a candidate for the office." [LC] § 3-12-8-6(2)8)(A). A trial court, after hearing a petition "alleging that a candidate is ineligible," must declare as elected "the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and render judgment accordingly." Id. § 3-12-8-17(c) (emphasis added).
Id. Additionally, the Indiana disqualification statute may be employed either pre-election to challenge one as a candidate or post-election to prevent the election winner from assuming his position. Id. at 581 (citing I.C. § 3-8-1-5(e)(6)). Accordingly, *1244"[tlhe point in time at which the statute's disqualifiers are to be assessed depends upon whether the challenger is using the statute to prevent another person from being a candidate or from assuming office." Id.
The IPS Board initiated this action by a complaint for declaratory judgment. As with the foregoing statutes, however, the statutory qualifier requiring geographic diversity on the IPS Board, as expressed in Indiana Code Section 20-25-3-4(b), has viability post-election. In my view, although Cohen was personally qualified at the time of the election, when Gore defeated Campbell, Cohen became statutorily disqualified to hold office because he was the third person residing in the district elected to the school board. Further, he remained disqualified at the time he assumed office.4
"Offices are neither grants nor contracts nor obligations which can not be changed or impaired. They are subject to the legislative will at all times, except so far as the constitution may protect them from interference." Jeffries, 63 Ind. at 594-95. Under other cireumstances, I could agree with my colleagues that the election results should stand. See Cline v. Board of Trustees of County Sch. Corp. of Brown County, 534 N.E.2d 748 (Ind.1989) (permitting disproportionate representation temporarily during establishment of redistricting plan.) But here, the legislature has spoken: "The member chosen by the board to fill a vacancy holds office until the member's successor is elected and qualified." LC. § 20-25-3-4(h). In accordance with subsection (h), Robinson, who was serving in the position before the election, should hold the second contested at-large position on the IPS Board until another person is elected and qualified. See Patterson v. Dykes, 804 N.E.2d 849 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (concluding that incumbent councilman should hold over until next general election because successful candidate was disqualified from holding the office to which he was elected).5
I come to this conclusion based upon principles of statutory construction, first, that we read the sections of an act together so that no part is rendered meaningless if it can be harmonized with the remainder of the statute. See slip op. at 6-7 (citing cases). I also find guidance in a related statute, Indiana Code Section 20-28-4-29, applicable "to each school corporation." IC. § 20-28-4-29(a). See Horn v. Hen-*1245drickson, 824 N.E.2d 690, 698 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (acknowledging principle that we consider related statutes to effectuate legislative intent). That enactment describes the ballot form and employs a striking procedure to avoid disproportionate representation, presumably when two or more board members are elected for the same term of office. The statute directs:
Candidates having the greatest number of votes are elected. However, if more than the maximum number that may be elected from a residence district are among those having the greatest number of votes, the lowest of those candidates from the residence district in excess of the maximum number shall be eliminated in determining the candidates who are elected.
1.0. § 20-28-4-29(g); see Cline, 534 N.E.2d at 752 (discussing predecessor statute). Although the statute may have limited applicability here because there were two "ballots" for two at-large positions with differing terms, the legislation clearly illustrates intent to avoid disproportionate representation and the resulting imbalance of power. The majority opinion gives no effect to this legislative intent.
Moreover, apart from statutory construction, the outcome I advance results in the retention of Robinson, who received the second-highest vote count of the four at-large candidates named in this action. The outcome also comports with equity, as Cohen chose to enter what was designated on the ballot as the "open" two-year term seat held by Robinson rather than the "incumbent" four-year term position. This choice created the possibility that three board members would reside in the same district in contravention of the statute and, thus, that Cohen would not statutorily be qualified to serve.6
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. I do not believe that the issue presented is moot, as the wrong person sits on the board. If it were moot, however, I agree that the public interest exception would apply, as the issue is likely to recur. Accordingly, in future cases where vacancies occur in what is termed an "open" election, I would apply the same analysis.

. The trial court also reasoned that subsection (e) controls because it is later in textual position than is subsection (b), and the Majority agrees with that reasoning. See State ex rel. Board of Com'rs of Hendricks County v. Board of Com'rs of Marion County, 170 Ind. 595, 85 N.E. 513, 515 (1908) (quoting 1 Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 268, p. 514 (2d ed.) for the proposition: "The different sections or provisions of the same statute or Code should be so constructed as to harmonize and give effect to each; but, if there is an irreconcilable conflict, the later in position prevails."); but see 2A Norman J. Singer and J.D. Shambie Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 46:5, pp. 226-27 (Ith ed. 2007) ("If conflict between provisions in the same act is resolvable no other way, the last provision in point of arrangement within the text of the act is given effect. However, if the words in question mean different things the rule of construction does not apply.") (citations omitted). Because I do not find irreconcilable conflict, I need not consider the Majority's "later in position" rationale. Nevertheless, I note that subsection (h) is the latest ""in position"" of the three subsections under consideration.

. Notably, Elizabeth Gore also chose the position for which she ran. However, because a vacancy in the "open'" at-large position caused the problem, and because subsection (h) specifically deals with that vacancy, the solution I propose affects that position only.