Foyst
A candidate for Columbus City Council and the Bartholomew County Election Board have filed their responses to a lawsuit from the Democratic Party.
Ross Thomas, Bartholomew County Democratic Party chairman, is suing Republican District 6 candidate Joseph Jay Foyst and the election board in an effort to remove Foyst from the Nov. 7 general election ballot.
The pending legal fight over Foyst’s candidacy could determine which party wins the new District 6 council seat. Should Thomas’ lawsuit prevail, Democratic nominee Bryan Munoz would run unopposed in the general election.
The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 7, and the deadline for voter registration is Oct. 10. Early in-person voting will begin on Oct. 16.
According to online court records, Foyst and the election board have filed answers to Thomas’s complaint, as well as motions to dismiss the case.
“Mr. Thomas, as Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chair, seeks to eliminate competition for the Democrat Party candidate in District 6 so that the Democrat candidate may win by default, thereby depriving the voters of Common Council District 6 a choice,” election board counsel Peter King wrote in the board’s motion to dismiss. “Such is not the result that the General Assembly intended.”
The election board has also filed motions to take judicial notice of exhibits and of the fact that Election Day is Nov. 7.
“Both parties filed their responses yesterday after the court closed,” Thomas said Tuesday morning. “We will respond today and request a prompt hearing.”
After no Republican candidate filed to run in the May primary for the new council District 6, the party held a caucus in July and chose to nominate Foyst.
Thomas filed his first challenge against Foyst on July 26, arguing that his candidacy was invalid because the Republican party had failed to file its notice for the July caucus with the clerk’s office by the required deadline.
While the election board upheld this challenge, there is a section of Indiana Code that allowed the GOP to fill the subsequent vacancy within 30 days, Bartholomew County Circuit Court Clerk Shari Lentz said in a previous interview.
The Bartholomew County Republican Party held another caucus for District 6 on Aug. 29, and Foyst was once again selected to fill the vacancy.
Thomas again attempted to challenge Foyst’s candidacy, arguing that Foyst and Republicans lacked authority in law to remedy his earlier removal from the ballot. After Lentz did not accept his filing — he told The Republic that she had said the deadline had passed to file a challenge — he filed the lawsuit on Sept. 6.
In addition to Foyst, Thomas named all three members of the election board in his suit, stating that he did so because their presence was necessary to issue the relief sought.
The responses filed by Foyst and the election board reject several of the points in Thomas’s complaint.
Additionally, both parties stated in their defenses that Thomas failed “to comply with statutory filing requirements pursuant to Indiana Election Code.”
In the board’s motion to dismiss, King cites Indiana Code 3-13-1-16.5, which says that a statement questioning the validity of a certificate of candidate selection must be filed with the county election board no later than noon 74 days before the date of the general or municipal election.
In this case, the election is set for Nov. 7, which would make the deadline to file such a statement Aug. 24, King argued.
“The failure of Mr. Thomas to file his claim questioning the validity of Mr. Foyst’s candidacy has been waived and is out of time,” he wrote.
He also argued that allowing Thomas’s challenge would “frustrate important objectives of the electoral process,” such as the finality of the ballot and providing an option of two candidates to choose from. Therefore, he said, it is not in the public interest to grant the requested injunction.
Additionally, George “Jay” Hoffman, III, counsel for Foyst, argued that Thomas failed to follow Indiana Code 34-26-1-7, which states, “In all applications for an injunction, the complaint or as much of the complaint as pertains to the acts or proceedings to be enjoined, must be verified by affidavit.”
“Since Plaintiff failed to verify his Complaint by supported affidavits, Defendant, Joseph ‘Jay’ Foyst, joins in the Election Board’s request that the Court dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” Hoffman wrote in the motion to dismiss.
