Five Lake County political candidates who stand to lose their jobs if they win election in November have asked a federal judge to rule in their favor.
The plaintiffs – Hobart Councilman Matthew Claussen, New Chicago Councilwoman Susan Pelfrey, East Chicago Councilman Juda Parks, Hammond Councilman Michael Opinker and Hammond City Council candidate Scott Rakos – made their request for a permanent injunction as part of a motion for summary judgment, filed recently in the U.S. District Court in Hammond.
The plaintiffs sued the state earlier this year against a 2012 law that bans council representatives from working for the government they represent. The law goes into full effect Jan. 1 and requires that anyone holding office automatically lose their job if they work for their own government.
More Top Picks Best Tens Units For Migraines
Claussen, Pelfrey, Opinker and Parks all say in affidavits with the motion that they can’t afford to live on their annual council pay – which ranges from $8,008 for Pelfrey to $41,000 for Parks – and would choose their government jobs over their elected seats.
Rakos says in his affidavit that he already decided to retire from the Hammond Fire Department, a choice that lost him $84,417 because he’s retiring before 2017.
The plaintiffs argue in their motion that the law deprives not only them of their right to free speech but also voters.
“The candidates’ status as municipal employees has been long known to the electorate, which has nonetheless chosen to return them to office,” Adam Sedia, their attorney, writes in the motion. “The practical effect of the state’s action, therefore, restricts the public’s choice of its representatives as much as it burdens the candidates’ ability to campaign for and hold public office.”
Supporters of the law have said its purpose is to fight corruption in government by not allowing council members to vote on their own wages and benefits.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the law doesn’t target their own action but the action of voters, who voted them into office.
“For the state to assert that the removal from office prevents corruption is to assert that the electorates of its own municipalities are corrupt….” the motion says.
Sedia said that because of legal issues, the plaintiffs were constrained as to how soon they could file their motion for summary judgment, even with the Jan. 1 date looming over them. He added that right now they are not in a rush, although there are other legal steps they can take if it gets closer to Jan. 1 with no ruling from a judge.
“You have to be very careful about when you file,” he said.
Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, said in an email that Zoeller’s office has a duty to defend the state and noted that it has already filed a motion to dismiss the case.
He added the state would reply to the motion for summary judgment in court.
The state has until Tuesday to file its response.