tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post7847741680390310377..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-39333043843855953462007-12-22T16:46:00.000-05:002007-12-22T16:46:00.000-05:00A decision like this will have Ed DeLaney putting in some more time after Christmas.<BR/><BR/>I didn't hear any fat ladies singing on this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-18544351944969855822007-12-22T10:16:00.000-05:002007-12-22T10:16:00.000-05:00The judge said that Bennett would've been disqaulified as a candidate due to the Hatch Act, but no one raised that issue during the campaign. The judge went on to say that the Hatch Act also applies to officeholders, but since Bennett will resign his job with the Hamilton Center before taking the oath of office, then he won't be disqualified once he assumes office.<BR/><BR/>So, he got away with an illegal campaign because nobody raised the issue? Now he can clear up the disqualification before he takes office?<BR/><BR/>This opinion seems to be in conflict with an Indiana Court of Appeals decision issued in '04 following a Madison County race. In that case a candidate won election to the city council, and then it was discovered he had a felony conviction. The councilman-elect applied to the governor for a pardon, but the court said that a pardon after the election would not eliminate the disqualification. <BR/><BR/>The statute that disqualifies one from running for or assuming office due to a felony conviction or Hatch Act is one in the same. Seems the law should be applied consistently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com