Indiana Supreme Court Justices, left to right, Geoffrey Slaughter, Mark Massa, Loretta Rush, Derek Molter and Christopher Goff. Photo from Supreme Court Flickr.

By Casey Smith
Indiana Capital Chronicle

INDIANAPOLIS — A years-long legal battle over a Columbus City Council member’s candidacy sparked a sharp exchange Thursday, March 13, between Indiana’s Supreme Court justices and Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chair Ross Thomas.

At issue in the underlying case was Thomas’ 2023 challenge against Republican Joseph “Jay” Foyst, which alleged Foyst’s candidacy in that year’s municipal election was invalid because the Bartholomew County GOP missed the deadline to file notice for a party caucus with the clerk’s office.

Foyst was initially selected as the Bartholomew County Republican Party’s nominee during a party caucus in July 2023. The caucus was convened after no Republican filed to run for the office in the party’s May primary, leaving a vacancy in the general election.

Republican Columbus City Council member Joseph Foyst. Photo from Foyst’s campaign website.

After the county election board upheld the challenge, the Bartholomew County Republican Party held a second caucus — again selecting Foyst to fill the vacancy.

Thomas’ repeated attempt to challenge Foyst’s candidacy was denied by the Bartholomew County clerk because the deadline had passed for him to file a challenge, prompting Thomas to file a lawsuit.

Despite the pending litigation, Foyst was ultimately elected to the Columbus City Council in November 2023 — beating out his Democrat opponent, Bryan Muñoz. A trial court judge upheld the Republican’s candidacy shortly after.

But Thomas appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed that the GOP caucus and certificate of candidacy were filed late, meaning Foyst was never a legal candidate. The decision reversed the election result and declared Muñoz the winner of the 2023 general election.

Foyst petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court last August to take up the case and reinstate him as the race winner.

His attorney, George Hoffman III, held Thursday that Thomas has no standing to bring the lawsuit because he has no injury. Muñoz, for example, would be better suited to bring a case, Hoffman said.

The lawyer affirmed, too, that the appellate ruling unconstitutionally “disenfranchised 454 voters” who voted to elect Foyst.

Thomas is an attorney and argued the case himself.

But the high court justices appeared skeptical, grilling Thomas for much of his allotted time before them. Contention largely centered around any injury — or lack thereof — that Thomas has personally suffered, and whether or not he was the appropriate party to seek legal remedy. The justices also questioned whether the overall issue was moot, given that the election in question already happened.

It’s now up to the court to decide whether they will take up the dispute. If they don’t, the appellate court decision in Thomas’ favor would be final.

Candidacy Challenge

Foyst, the Republican candidate for the Columbus City Council’s District 6 seat, argued in court documents that his county GOP substantially complied with election law.

While the notice of the initial caucus was filed one day late, the meeting was still held — and Foyst was properly selected as the party’s candidate, his counsel wrote.

Bartholomew County Democratic Party Chair Ross Thomas Photo from Bartholomew County Democratic Party.

The Bartholomew County Circuit Court Clerk accepted the late filing, opining that the delay was minor and should not invalidate Foyst’s selection. Foyst further noted he was actively campaigning and publicly recognized as a candidate throughout the election cycle.

After Thomas successfully challenged the first caucus, the Bartholomew County Republican Party held a second caucus, invoking a state law that allows for a vacancy to be filled even after a “successful challenge.”

The county election board allowed Foyst’s second candidacy to proceed, and he bested Muñoz’s 309 votes with 454 votes.

Hoffman maintained Thursday that overturning the election would be unfair to the electorate and set an unfair precedent for courts to override local election outcomes based on technicalities.

Justice Christopher Goff questioned whether the court should weigh in at all. He pointed to a 1985 decision in which the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that “if you miss a deadline like this … that (candidate) is void.”

Jenna Lorence, with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, additionally spoke on Foyst’s behalf and cited existing state law for pre-election challenges.

High Court Justices Grill Thomas

Thomas reiterated, however, that Foyst was never a legal candidate because the county Republican Party failed to meet a key legal deadline.

A section in Indiana election law requires a caucus notice to be filed with the county clerk at least 10 days before the gathering. The Bartholomew County Republican Party filed the notice one day late. Thomas said that meant the clerk was legally barred from accepting filing, making Foyst’s initial selection invalid.

But Thomas also maintained that Foyst’s second candidacy should not have been allowed.

Although Foyst was renominated in the second caucus under the “successful challenges” exception, Thomas argued that exception did not apply because Foyst was never legally a candidate in the first place.

As the only legally eligible candidate, Muñoz remains the rightful winner, Thomas said.

Thomas said the law is plain. He said Foyst’s candidacy was never valid and should not have qualified to be challenged in the first place.

Slaughter repeatedly probed Thomas about injuries and questioned if Muñoz or the county Democratic Party would be better positioned to file a lawsuit. When Thomas remarked that he was, in fact, “representing the party,” Slaughter pushed back.

Still, Justice Derek Molter seemed to doubt that Thomas’ post-election challenge could result in any resolution.