Mike Wolanin | The Republic Republican Joseph “Jay” Foyst listens to the ruling by the Bartholomew County Election Board during a hearing over a challenge to his candidacy for Columbus City Council District 6 in the Bartholomew County Clerk’s Office at the Bartholomew County Courthouse in Columbus, Ind., Friday, Aug. 18, 2023.
The Bartholomew County Election Board has decided to grant a challenge to the candidacy of Republican Joseph Jay Foyst for Columbus City Council District 6, meaning he is off the ballot for now. However, GOP officials indicated that there may be a way to get him back in the race.
The election board made its decision at a hearing Friday afternoon.
Foyst, 60, previously a salesman for 25 years and now a dump truck driver, was selected as the Bartholomew County Republican Party’s nominee during a party caucus in July. The caucus was convened after no Republican filed to run for the office in the party’s May primary, leaving a vacancy in the Nov. 7 general election.
Democrat Byan Muñoz ran unopposed for his party’s District 6 nomination in the primary.
Bartholomew County Democratic Party chairman Ross Thomas alleged in his challenge that the Republican Party failed to file a required notice of the party caucus with the Bartholomew County Clerk’s Office before a state-imposed deadline, which he argues makes Foyst’s candidacy “void and of no effect.”
“Because the procedures set out in Indiana law were not followed here, Joseph Foyst is not a valid candidate and should not appear in the 2023 general election municipal ballot,” Thomas stated.
While the election board upheld the challenge, there is a section of Indiana Code that allows the Republican Party to fill the vacancy within 30 days, said Bartholomew County Clerk Shari Lentz.
IC 3-13-1-7 contains a provision regarding candidate vacancies that exist before the 30th day before a general, municipal or special election due to number of reasons, including the successful challenge of a candidate in certain circumstances.
“Action to fill a candidate vacancy under section 3, 4, 5, or 6 of this chapter for reasons permitted under this subsection must be taken within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the vacancy,” Indiana Code states.
Republican Party vice chairman Josh Burnett said that he believes the party would be allowed to put Foyst on the ballot again under this statute.
“There’s no sore loser law in this case,” he said.
When asked about the possibility of another caucus, Thomas said, “I don’t think the law allows that. If they were to take an action like that, I think it clearly goes against the spirit of the law and particularly if they’re trying to nominate the same person who’s been excluded from the ballot.”
He said that the Democratic Party would “address” the matter if the Republican Party goes down this path.
Thomas’ original challenge, filed July 26, cites provisions of the Indiana Code that state that notice of a party caucus must be filed with the county clerk’s office and sent via first-class mail to everyone who is eligible to participate no later than noon 10 days before the caucus is held.
The caucus during which Foyst was nominated took place July 1, which would mean that notice would have had to be mailed out and filed with Bartholomew County Clerk’s Office no later than noon on July 21, Thomas wrote. He clarified at Friday’s hearing that he had meant to write June 21 and noted that there was another instance where he had accidentally written July instead of June in the document.
County records included with Thomas’ challenge indicate that notice of the caucus was mailed out to precinct committee members on June 19 but not filed with the Bartholomew County Clerk’s Office until June 22.
“I’m not suggesting bad faith on anybody’s part,” he said during the hearing. “I’m not suggesting that anybody was trying to get over on anybody, but the date was missed. And if I had missed that date, I would expect no less from the other side.”
Foyst declined to offer testimony during the hearing and asked party officials to speak instead, stating, “It’s not my dispute. It’s a paperwork filing dispute. It’s not me.”
Burnett, who spoke on the party’s behalf, argued that Thomas’s corrections of his typo on the dates counted as a change to his challenge.
“He was well aware, as we were, that no additional evidence or changes could be made three days outside of today’s hearing,” Burnett said. “Also, in addition, if we were to go through this, it’s my understanding — which, I am not an attorney like Mr. Thomas — but we can talk about what we meant to say, but the only reason we were put on notice was because of what was said.”
Thomas responded that despite his typos, the exhibits included in his original challenge — including the minutes of the caucus and the party’s CAN-47 paperwork — showed the actual dates and were more important.
“It’s pretty disingenuous to say that the Republican party thought we were talking about July 22,” he said.
The council seat at stake is a new one. District 6 was recently created due to the city’s decision to adopt second-class status and includes portions of central and north Columbus.
In addition to the new District 6 seat, city voters in November also will elect three at-large members instead of the current two, bringing the total number of city council members up from seven to nine.
The general election is Tuesday, Nov. 7, and the deadline for voter registration is Oct. 10. According to indianavoters.in.gov, early in-person voting will begin on Oct. 11 in Columbus.
