White was registered in Indiana and was constitutionally and statutorily entitled to vote.
He was also properly registered to vote at the Broad Leaf home. He had properly abandoned all other residences to which he could return. Broad Leaf was also the home of his immediate family because his son lived there. Generally, Broad Leaf was a "non-traditional residence," which election law defines as not fixed or permanent. He intended to live there until he was married and moved to the Overview condominium.In the sentencing hearing yesterday, Judge Steven Nation said that the trial court found that White had "intentionally defrauded the public by using his ex-wife's home to vote and continuing to take his Fishers Town Council salary after he had moved out of the district." How can Zoeller's office argue on appeal in the Recount Commission case that White was "properly registered to vote" at his ex-wife's house and defend White's criminal convictions based on him being illegally registered to vote at his ex-wife's house? The answer, in short, is that he can't under the rules of professional conduct. If Zoeller believes what his office wrote in that brief in the Recount Commission case, he has a legal obligation to argue on White's behalf in the criminal appeal that these special prosecutors and Judge Nation got the law wrong. Not just a little wrong, but badly wrong. The theft issue over drawing his Fishers Town Council salary for a few month period is a separate matter, but a proper application of Indiana law on that issue should also be resolved in White's favor as well because he stole nothing from Fishers. Judge Nation did not ask White to pay restitution because Fishers' officials communicated to Judge Nation that the town had not been a victim and White owed them nothing.