On April 9, 2012, Petitioners filed a "Motion
Recuse Judge Shaheed UnderRule 79 ofIndiana Rules ofTl'ial Procedure."
Petitioners appear to move for recusal under Indiana Trial Rule 79(c).Apparently, Petitioners allege that recusal
necessary because a person within the third degree
the judge is known by the judge to have
interest that could be substantiallyaffected by the proceeding.
Petitioners' motion is improper because they have failed to establish that anyperson related to the judge could be substantially affected by the proceeding. Petitioners allegethat one
petitioners, Bob Kern, is a Democratic candidate for
Congress runningagainst a relative
Judge Shaheed. Pet. Motion
Pursuant to AOPA, standing for a judicial review is limited to a person to whomthe agency action is specifically directed, a person who was a party
the agency proceedingsthat led to the agency action, a person eligible for standing under a law applicable to the agencyaction, or a person otherwise aggrieved or adversely affected by the agency action. Ind. Code §4-21.5-5-3(a).
Petitioners claim that Mr. Kern "submitted an elections fraud complaint againstPresidential candidate Barack Obama," so it appears that Petitioners claim standing for Mr. Kernbased on his being paIty to the agency proceedings. Pet. For Emergency Injunctive ReliellPetfor Declaratory
Notably, however, Mr. Kern
not included as one
those whosubmitted the Election Commission challenge for which they now seek judicial review.
Thus, based on Petitioners' own filing, Mr. Kern does not have standing to challenge theElection Commission's decision; much less seek recusal
conceivable that Petitioners claim standing for Mr. Kern based on his being a person aggrieved oradversely affected
decision, Petitioners have made no showing pursuant
met the requirements for slanding as