Rep. Nima Kulkarni, D-Louisville, prevailed in Franklin Circuit Court on Monday. (LRC Public Information)
Republican Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams has opened a path for Democratic state Rep. Nima Kulkarni to appear on the November ballot, although further legal challenges could arise.
Adams declared a vacancy in the nomination process for Louisville’s 40th House District on the heels of legal challenges against Kulkarni’s candidacy. However, attorneys on both sides disagree on if Kulkarni is eligible to be nominated.?
In a statement issued after the Kentucky Supreme Court finalized its disqualification of Kulkarni Thursday morning, Adams said he interpreted the new opinion to mean that no primary election had occurred since Kulkarni’s candidacy was challenged before votes were cast. Therefore, “the true and legitimate will of the people has not yet been expressed,” Adams said, citing the Supreme Court’s opinion.?
“I take this as a directive to me to certify that a vacancy exists in the nomination for state representative in the 40th District,” Adams said. “I intend to permit the Democratic and Republican Parties to nominate candidates for this office, and give the people a choice.”
The Kentucky Supreme Court in June issued a one-page preliminary order disqualifying Kulkarni as a candidate in the primary election because of problems in her filing papers. On Thursday, the court issued a final 5-1-1 ruling and addressed questions around the nomination process.?
The lawsuit against Kulkarni, filed by former Democratic state Rep. Dennis Horlander, whom Kulkarni unseated in 20018, challenged the validity of her candidacy papers.
Kulkarni’s attorney, James Craig, said they appreciated Adams’ “swift work, which the voters of District 40 deserved.”?
“Notwithstanding today’s Supreme Court decision, Rep. Kulkarni remains eligible to seek her party’s nomination after the declaration of a vacancy, and she intends to seek the nomination,” Craig added.?
Kulkarni won the unofficial primary vote in the district by 78% over challenger William Zeitz. No Republican candidates filed for the election. Kulkarni defeated Horlander in the 2018 and 2020 Democratic primaries in the 40th House District. Kulkarni is seeking a fourth term in office.?
However, Horlander’s attorney, Steven Megerle, told the Kentucky Lantern that Kulknari cannot be nominated by Democrats in this election. He cited a recent state law that bars disqualified primary candidates from running for the same office.?
“The Jefferson circuit court judge should issue a final order with directions on next steps to all of the parties on how this should proceed,” Megerle said. “And we will await his direction, but it is absolutely clear that Ms. Kulkarni has been disqualified, and under the new statute, she cannot be a nominee in the general election.”
In contrast, Craig pointed to a previous brief from Megerle in the lawsuit that said disqualifying “a first-place finisher after the election does not entitle the second-place finisher to ascend to a nomination he was unable to obtain through the ballot box.”?
As for Horlander, Megerle said that he believes Zeitz is the qualifying candidate for office and should be certified as such.
“If the courts and the secretary of state think otherwise, Mr. Horlander will consider the options that may in the future open up,” Megerle said.
Justices weigh in
Horlander filed the lawsuit to challenge the signatures on Kulkarni’s candidacy papers. State law says the documents must be signed by two witnesses who are Democratic voters in the 40th District. At the time of signing, one witness was a registered Republican and changed her registration after the filing deadline. Kulkarni previously testified she thought the voter was a registered Democrat and only later became aware of the issue.?
State law places the burden on candidates to ensure the accuracy of their election filing papers, the court wrote in its majority opinion, written by Justice Shea Nickell.
“It is not unreasonable or unduly harsh to demand strict compliance with clearly enacted legislative mandates for ballot access,” the opinion said. Assuring one’s required election filings are compliant is among the first duties of anyone intent upon seeking public office.”
Justice Kelly Thompson issued an opinion dissenting in part. He wrote that while he agreed with the court’s interpretation that the Court of Appeals could determine if Kulkarni was a bona fide candidate, he disagreed “with its ultimate resolution of that issue.”?
Thompson said he was persuaded by arguments from Justice Angela McCormick Bisig that an 1990 update to state law regarding the candidate nomination process created “sufficient ambiguity that they should be interpreted as intending” to amend previous state law. Thompson called the “hypertechnical requirements” of the law “a trap for unwary candidates who file for office” and suggested the Kentucky secretary of state and General Assembly address the issues.?
Bisig wrote in a dissenting opinion that the court should uphold the ruling of Jefferson County Circuit Court that would have allowed Kulkarni to remain on the ballot. She wrote about different interpretations of the 1990 changes.?
“Given the two possible interpretations of the amendment to the filing requirements statute, I would recognize the long-standing principle that uncertainty or doubt in statutory language ‘should be resolved in favor of allowing the candidacy to continue,’” Bisig said, citing a 2003 case. “The idea of liberal construction of election statutes that favors the goal of broad voter participation is deeply embedded in Kentucky law.”
Editor’s note: This story was updated with additional comments.?