The Indiana Secretary of State, Connie Lawson, is running for another four-year term this November. Some Indiana voters have challenged her ability to do so, because of the state’s term limits law. See this story by Steve Goodale of News Growl.
The Indiana Secretary of State, Connie Lawson, is running for another four-year term this November. Some Indiana voters have challenged her ability to do so, because of the state’s term limits law. See this story by Steve Goodale of News Growl.
The challenger and author of the article are making a strained interpretation of the constitution.
I would be really interested to hear what you think is strained about my interpretation 🙂
(I’m the author)
The Indiana Constitution is very cut and dry: statewide officers are limited to eight years of service in a twelve year period, and pro tempore service doesn’t count.
The question is what does pro tempore mean. The Indiana Constitution does not say – the term “pro tempore” is mentioned in four other places but each time in relation to the Senate Pro Tem.
The Indiana State Code only uses the term “pro tempore” in relation to the Senate Pro Tem or for lower office, like town and county officials (as far as I could find).
That leaves us to find a legal definition from general sources, like Black’s Law Dictionary, and Lawson’s own account. That’s what I have attempted to do.
But if you can convince me otherwise I will amend my story or publish a followup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_tempore
basically a wiki now for EVERYTHING *important* —
armies of profs typing for decades.
————
DARK AGE gerrymander math — even for media folks and profs —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
ALL States since 1776. USA regime since 1789.
Much worse primary math since 1888.
Democracy is de facto almost D-E-A-D in the USA
— nonstop monarchs/oligarchs in POWER.
—
NO primaries
PR legis and NONPARTISAN AppV – exec/judic — pending Condorcet.
The provision regarding not counting appointed periods was in the 1851 Constitution.
The provision of term limits for the SOS was in the 1851 Constitution. It was changed when the length of terms was increased to four years, but structurally it is the same.
What you are arguing is that the constitutional provision does not apply to constitutional offices, but rather only statutory elective offices which the legislature characterized as having pro tempore appointments.
What offices do you think that Article 2 Section 11 does apply to?
Really sorry but I’m struggling to follow your argument. Please forgive me if I’m not understanding you.
Are you saying there is a provision in the current Indiana Constitution (which was originally enacted in 1851 according to my research) that says appointed periods should not count towards term limits?
I mean, something other than Article 2 Section 11, which currently makes this provision for pro tempore service, but does not specify anything about appointments in general.
Generally —
pro tempore = TEMPORARY = ACTING
NO Lt Gov in a State Senate >>> Lt Gov pro tempore — generally a senior state Senator presides until the old Lt Gov shows up or a new Lt Gov is chosen.
Esp in USA Senate for routine biz — with HACK VPs not in DC — in other States or nations.
—
Many States have a provision that a Lt Guv becomes acting/temporary/pro tempore Guv if the Guv is out of the State for any reason — esp. related to Guv/Acting Guv being CIC of State military forces.
Generally multiple officers listed in State CIC command chains — by constitution or a law – in case of WAR, riots, etc.
Article 2, Section 11 has not been modified since 1851, when the current constitution was enacted. Since Article 2 concerns elections and suffrage, we can presume that it applies to elective offices.
The 1851 constitution provided the that the Secretary of State would be elected for a two-year term, and could only serve four years in a six-year period. So for instance a SOS could serve from 1901-1903, and 1903-1905, but would have to sit out 1905-1907. But then they could serve from 1907-1909, since that would be four years out of the period 1903-1909. And they could also serve from 1909-1911, since the service from 1903-1905 would be aged off. While it is phrased as four out of six year, it has the effect to limiting service to four consecutive years.
The constitution has since been amended to make the SOS term be four years, with service limited to eight years in every twelve, or eight continuous years.
If you believe that Article 2, Section 11 does not apply to SOS, you must also believe it would not apply to Auditor or Treasurer, or Governor or all the elective county offices provided for in the Constitution.
So what do you believe is the purpose of Article 2, Section 11?
@Steve Goodale – You explained the story exceptionally well. If Indiana has an even playing field of justice, it appears a fairly straightforward case that, if elected, she will be going over the 8 years of eligibility.
@Constitution Craig,
Indiana restricts the SOS to 8 years (two terms) of continuous service. It is not a lifetime limit like term limits in other states. A person first elected at 25 who lives to 93, could serve 12 terms for 48 years, if they took off four years after every eight years.
But there is a provision in the Constitution that provides an exception if part of the service is by appointment.
Steve Goodale is arguing that this exception does not apply to the SOS. But he has not explained what the purpose of the exception is. Why would the drafters of the Constitution include a superfluous provision?