Mike Wolanin | The Republic Columbus City Council District 6 candidate Joseph Jay Foyst, from left, watches as attorneys Ross Thomas and and Peter King, representing the Bartholomew County Election Board, talk after a pretrial hearing for Thomas’ lawsuit against Joseph Jay Foyst and the Bartholomew County Election Board at the Bartholomew County Courthouse in Columbus, Ind., Monday, Oct. 16, 2023.
The next hearing for a pending lawsuit regarding a candidate for city council will be held next week or the week after, at a venue in Johnson County.
A pre-trial conference was held Monday afternoon for Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chairman Ross Thomas’s lawsuit against Joseph Jay Foyst and the county election board. Thomas seeks to have Foyst, the Republican candidate for Columbus City Council District 6, removed from the ballot.
Special Judge K. Mark Loyd, who is presiding over the suit, agreed to look at setting a hearing date for the morning of Oct. 25 or Nov. 1, with the session located in a Johnson County Court.
This was done to accommodate Thomas, who is representing a client at a federal jury trial in Franklin.
Loyd said this is not a permanent change of venue.
The Republic made a request a week ago under a new Indiana Supreme Court rule that allows judges to grant camera access in the courtroom under specific guidelines. The hearing was photographed by Republic photo editor Mike Wolanin after Loyd granted access to the hearing on Friday.
The hearing, initially set for Bartholomew Circuit Court, was conducted in the larger courtroom of Bartholomew Superior Court 1 to allow more room for the hearing. Judge Jim Worton invited Loyd on Friday to move the hearing to Superior 1 if he wished.
Foyst, 61, 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.
Thomas filed a formal challenge against Foyst, arguing that his candidacy was invalid because the Bartholomew County Republican Party had failed to file its notice for a party caucus with the clerk’s office by the required deadline.
The election board upheld the challenge in August, but the Bartholomew County Republican Party decided to hold another caucus and selected Foyst once again to fill the vacancy, pointing to a section in the Indiana Code that allows parties to fill a vacancy within 30 days under certain circumstances.
Thomas attempted to challenge Foyst’s candidacy again, but his request was denied by Bartholomew County Clerk Shari Lentz because the deadline had passed to file a challenge, prompting Thomas to file the lawsuit.
The outcome of the legal fight could determine which party wins the new District 6 council seat. If Thomas wins the lawsuit, Democratic nominee Bryan Munoz would have no opponent in the general election. And depending on how long the case continues during early voting, people could wind up casting votes for a candidate who may later be ruled ineligible.
Monday marked the first day of early in-person voting for the municipal election.
At the conclusion of the pre-trial hearing, Loyd requested that Thomas provide legal points of authority for some of his arguments.
Thomas has repeatedly claimed that since Foyst’s paperwork was not turned in on time, he was never a valid candidate. However, Hoffman and King pointed to Indiana Code 3-5-2-6(a), which states that a candidate is generally defined as a person who:
(1) has taken the action necessary to qualify under Indiana law for listing on the ballot at an election or to become a write-in candidate;
(2) has publicly announced or declared candidacy for an elected office; or
(3) otherwise seeks nomination for or election to an elected office, regardless of whether the individual wins election to the office.
Hoffman said that Foyst’s actions, including canvassing, indicate a public notification of his candidacy, thereby making him a candidate.
Thomas said that section of Indiana Code is meant to be applied in situations that deal with campaign finance and is not applicable in this case.
Loyd requested that Thomas provide legal citations of code supporting his claims that a person has to file the proper paperwork in order to be a candidate and that I.C. 3-5-2-6(a) does not apply here.
He also requested materials from the defendants regarding the Republican party’s second caucus in August.
“I don’t know how much time we’re going to need for other portions of this case,” Loyd said. However, he added that he hopes to bring it to an end prior to Election Day.
