 |
| Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White |
Yesterday I read the White report cover to cover. I have to wonder what all the fuss was about. Calling it an "investigatory report" is being charitable. No witnesses were talked to in preparation of the report. The report just refers vaguely to publicly available documents and discusses how the applicable law might be applied. The report makes clear that there may be evidence out there that might override the assumption that White violated the law. An example might be White's ex-wife and husband who were never called to testify before the grand jury even though it was their house White claimed to be residing at. Why didn't the prosecutors call them? Probably because their testimony would have likely contradicted their case Remember prosecutors get to pick and choose what evidence they present to the grand jury.
Secretary of State Charlie White was vilified for getting access to the "confidential" report, but he has rightfully been cleared by the Inspector General of misconduct, a fact the media barely reported. It is clear that there is nothing in it remotely "confidential." It should have never been determined by the Public Access Counselor to be work product or agency deliberative or advisory material. Then Secretary of State Todd Rokita had no constitutional or statutory authority to investigate voter fraud. He was simply responding to public pressure to do something, probably because Rokita for seven plus years had left the inaccurate representation that he has authority over elections and is the "chief election officer" for the state, a fact the Indianapolis Star wrongly ridicules White for disputing. In fact, the Secretary of State's role in elections is extremely limited, acting as a repository for some candidate filings and sitting on the Recount Commission. That's it.
Maybe it is time to simply stop assuming White is guilty and give the man his day in court.
To view Advance Indiana's take on the subject, click here.