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. Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chair Ross Thomas’s challenge asserted that the Bartholomew County Republican Party had not filed the paperwork for Foyst’s candidacy on time. The board upheld the challenge and Foyst will be removed from the ballot.
Joseph Jay Foyst is back on the ballot for Columbus City Council District 6, but the Bartholomew County Democratic Party is likely to seek another challenge to his candidacy.
The Bartholomew County Republican Party held a caucus Tuesday evening to select a candidate for District 6. According to party chair Luann Welmer, Foyst was selected unanimously, with no other candidates seeking to fill the vacancy.
The Bartholomew County Election Board previously granted the Bartholomew County Democratic Party’s challenge to the candidacy of Foyst for District 6.
Foyst, 60, previously a salesman for 25 years and now a dump truck driver, was initially 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.
Bartholomew County Democratic Party chairman Ross Thomas challenged Foyst’s candidacy, arguing that it was invalid because the Republican party had failed to file its notice for the July caucus with the Bartholomew County Clerk’s office by the required deadline.
However, while the election board upheld the challenge, there is a section of Indiana Code that allowed the GOP to fill the vacancy within 30 days, said Bartholomew County Clerk Shari Lentz, who is a Republican.
Following Tuesday’s caucus, Thomas said that his party planned to submit another challenge, stating that the GOP’s “very broad interpretation of election law is flawed.”
“The rules are the rules, and we’re going to ensure that they’re followed,” he said.
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 June 21, Thomas wrote.
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.
“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.
Republicans have said, however, that they believe IC 3-13-1-7 allows them to hold another caucus and put Foyst back on the ballot.
This section of Indiana Code states that action to fill a candidate vacancy on a general or municipal election ballot must typically be taken no later than noon on July 3 after the primary election.
However, there are exceptions for candidate vacancies that exist before the 30th day before the election and are due to certain 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,” the section states.
One of the listed reasons is “the successful challenge of a candidate under sections 16.5 and 20.5 of this chapter.” Lentz said it seems like this provision would apply in this instance.
Section 16.5 pertains to situations where there are questions regarding the “validity of a certificate of candidate selection.”
However, Thomas said that while IC 3-13-1-7 might apply for some vacancies, it was not the legislature’s intent to allow a party to miss one deadline and then create another.
He added that while there’s not a lot of case law to interpret the statute, there are other state laws that apply to this situation and also need to be taken into account.
“(Foyst) was never a candidate because his filing was late, and it should not have been accepted,” Thomas said.
He cited 3-13-1-21, which states that a circuit court clerk may not receive a filing of certificate of candidate selection if the notice of a caucus or meeting, the notice of intent to fill a vacancy under section 20 of this chapter, the declaration of candidacy filed by the individual selected as the candidate, or the certificate of candidate selection “is or was offered to be filed after the deadline.”
Thomas said that courts have interpreted this statute to mean that in such instances, the candidacy is rendered void.
The council seat at stake is a new one. City council’s District 6 was recently created due to the city’s decision to adopt second-class status and includes portions of central and north Columbus. The Democratic candidate for District 6 is Bryan Muñoz, who ran unopposed for his party’s District 6 nomination in the primary.
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.
