IC 3-8-1-5.5
Candidates defeated in primary or nomination process; ineligibility
Sec. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in IC 3-13-1-19 and IC 3-13-2-10 for filling a vacancy on a ticket, a person who:
(1) is defeated in a primary election;
(2) appears as a candidate for nomination at a convention and is defeated;
(3) files a declaration of candidacy for nomination by a county, city, or town convention and is defeated; or
(4) files a declaration of candidacy for nomination by a caucus conducted under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2 and is defeated;
is not eligible to become a candidate for the same office in the next general or municipal election.
(b) For the purposes of subsection (a):
(1) a candidate for an at-large seat on a fiscal body is considered a candidate for the same office as a candidate for a district seat on a fiscal body; and
(2) a candidate for United States representative from a district in Indiana is considered a candidate for the same office as a candidate for any other congressional district in Indiana.
(c) This section does not apply to a candidate who files a written request for placement on the presidential primary ballot under IC 3-8-3.
As added by P.L.10-1988, SEC.30. Amended by P.L.3-1997, SEC.115; P.L.38-1999, SEC.22; P.L.176-1999, SEC.27.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
whats this mean?
It means Thompson and Rowland cannot be candidates for Republican caucus if McHenry withdraws for any reason.
CC - that is one interpretation. Is a person in a primary "defeated" if the nominal winner was ineligible to run in the first place? If McHenry was in violation of the law, one would think a remaining candidate with the most votes would become the winner...
"CC - that is one interpretation. Is a person in a primary "defeated" if the nominal winner was ineligible to run in the first place? If McHenry was in violation of the law, one would think a remaining candidate with the most votes would become the winner..."
Under the Hatch Act, is it a violation to run for office?
Or is it violation of the Act to take office and keep your federally funded job?
Never mind.
After a quick read about the Act it would seem that Messmore (not sure about McHenry) would not be eligible to run for partisan public office if he applies for such federally funded grants, manages such grants, orders equipment with such grant funds, or supervises anyone with any of those responsibilities.
I don't know enough about McHenry's job to draw any conclusions about his eligibility to run for partisan public office.
Interesting read concerning the Hatch Act and "Advisory Opinions for State and Local Employee Activities" provided by the U.S Office of Special Counsel (see 10/30/08 "Employee of Task Force covered by Hatch Act even though salary and overtime is not funded by a federal loan or grant):
http://www.osc.gov/haStateLocalSampleAdvisoryOpinions.htm
The remedy for violation appears to be removal from employment but there may be another twist - it is also illegal for someone covered by the Hatch act to solicit contributions from other persons covered by the Act and that is subject to criminal prosecution (Title 18, fines and up to 3 years).
I wonder if any of his over $3000 in unitemized contributions came from his fellow SCU officers. Or Mr. Messmore?
Enquiring minds want to know...
? = ??? My mistake.
Post a Comment