Secretary of State Candidacy Challenged: Connie Lawson’s Pro Tempore Defense – by Andrew Horning

Press Release:

WHAT: Indiana Election Commission CAUSE NUMBER 2018-12

WHEN: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 @ 2pm

WHERE: Indiana State House Room 125, 200 W Washington, Indpls, IN 46204

Alan Horton, as a pro tempore appointee, will present Horning’s challenge of Connie Lawson’s candidacy in CAUSE NUMBER: 2018-12, as Horning is out of state on business.

The defense of Lawson’s candidacy will depend upon the claim that her more than two-year appointment by Governor Mitch Daniels was a pro tempore (temporary and/or conditional) appointment.  This does not fit with the meaning of that term, or the intent and history of the law.

Furthermore, this cause represents a continuous expansion of political powers and reduction of citizen powers by gradually corrupting constitutional amendments, and unconstitutional legislation, which has spawned a culture of political cronyism that foils the purpose of term limits, democratic elections, and constitutional rule of law.

The entrenchment of unconstitutional “Major Political Party” cronies, and the unconstitutional suppression of any alternatives, really has to stop.

This case exemplifies the violation of our most fundamental civil and moral laws.  Polls show that a growing, majority percentage of citizens are getting Up To Here with the dysfunction, deceit, misplaced priorities and incivility of this corruption.  Yet the “Major Political Parties” are losing followers as they maneuver to increase their power.

In the following is a summary of Horning’s argument against Lawson’s pro tempore defense.

1. The original 1851 Article 6, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution said: “There shall be elected, by the voters of the State, a Secretary, and Auditor and a Treasurer of State, who shall, severally, hold their offices for two years. They shall perform such duties as may be enjoined by law; and no person shall be eligible to either (sic) of said offices, more than four years in any period of six years.”
2. Article 2 Section 11 is unchanged from 1851: “In all cases in which it is provided that an office shall not be filled by the same person more than a certain number of years continuously, an appointment pro tempore shall not be reckoned a part of that term.” In the context of short term limits, and without legislation granting special powers to a special class of citizens (“Major Political Parties,” IC Title 3), stretching the definition of pro tempore would have seemed harmless.
3. But as amended by November 3, 1970, the aforementioned term limits were doubled: “There shall be elected, by the voters of the state, a Secretary, an Auditor and a Treasurer of State, who shall, severally, hold their offices for four years. They shall perform such duties as may be enjoined by law; and no person shall be eligible to either (sic) of said offices, more than eight years in any period of twelve years.” Other state office term limits, such as the Governor, were also doubled.  Note that Lawson’s first term as SOS was for longer than the 1851 full term of elected office, and was over half the 1851 term limit.
4. Connie Lawson’s unconditional replacement of Charlie White was not pro tempore by any reasonable definition of pro tempore (proxy, locum tenens or conditional officeholder – e.g., the President pro tempore of the Senate, who stands-in for the Lt. Governor’s role as President of the Senate, or Judge Pro Tem who stands in for another judge). Charlie White was not temporarily incapacitated or expected to return to office.  He had to be fully replaced, and not by proxy.
5. Partisan insiders knew that Connie Lawson’s pro tempore defense is at least dubious, or they wouldn’t have engaged a well-known lawyer to prepare a defense.
6. This is a case-in-point of the expansion of unconstitutional partisan powers at the expense of constitutionally regulated politics. For example, relatively recent Indiana Code Title 3 partisan rules grant only two private clubs electoral and governing powers, exemptions and legal status unavailable to any other clubs or individuals.  And over the years, the restrictions on independent and other party candidates have greatly increased (for example, the number of signatures required for independent candidate’s statewide ballot access grew over 65 times greater between 1933 and 2001, though the state’s population barely doubled in that period.  And the deadline was gradually shortened by nearly five months, necessitating collection in winter.).  This is of course in violation of the Indiana Constitution’s Article I, Section 23: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not belong to all citizens.”  Only a few of the special powers granted to only Democrats and Republicans existed before 1933, or for the most part, even by 1970 when Article 6 was amended.  These special powers, privileges and advantages greatly amplify the effect of perverting constitutional limitations on political power.
7. The intent of the term limitation, even as of 1970, was to limit the power and electoral advantage of incumbency, limit the entrenchment of factions, and inhibit politics as a lifetime career.
8. The purpose of democratic elections is to both thwart crony entrenchment, and to give equal opportunity for all people, without any special classes of citizen powers, privileges or immunities, an equal chance to serve their society.
9. The aforementioned expansion and transgression of authority in real effect bequeaths special-class cronies high offices they’d otherwise not likely win by fair and constitutional public elections from a diverse pool of citizens.
10. Given the known power and odds of incumbency, the Republican Party will likely use these immoral, illegal/unconstitutional advantages again for the state’s highest office in 2024, should Lawson’s candidacy prevail.
11. Summary: Connie Lawson’s first term of office was not pro tempore. And per arguments previously submitted, she is not eligible for election to a term of office she cannot lawfully complete.  To allow this candidacy to go forward presents a dangerous precedent and an abuse of public trust.