ILNews

Appeals filed in challenged mail-in ballot ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The plaintiffs in a Marion County suit involving how challenged mail-in absentee ballots are counted have filed a verified appellate Rule 56(a) motion for the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over their appeal.

Raymond J. Schoettle, Erica Pugh, and the Marion County Republican Party filed the motion Oct. 31 after Marion Circuit Judge Theodore M. Sosin ordered in Raymond J. Schoettle, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 49C01-0810-PL-049131, that the Marion County Election Board is to treat all challenged mail-in absentee votes as provisional ballots and set them aside for future resolution by the election board pursuant to Indiana Code Section 3-11.7. The order also required the election board to instruct all inspectors and precinct board members to follow the procedures outlined in the Indiana Election Day Handbook.

The Marion County Election Board filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal Oct. 31 to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court's order is "internally contradictory" and "vague," so the election board can't be sure what it requires. The election board also argues the injunction requires it to use certain procedures relating to the counting of absentee ballots that violate Indiana law and the federal Help America Vote Act. They want the emergency stay because they say the injunction is unsupported by law and will require hundreds of poll workers to be retrained before Election Day.

Schoettle and other plaintiffs believe the Supreme Court should take the appeal because the Court of Appeals will effectively become the court of last resort because the courts are closed tomorrow in observance of Election Day. The plaintiffs argue if the election board doesn't have to comply with the trial court's mandate, then challenged ballots will be scanned into the ballot box on Election Day and there is no way to remove a ballot to determine its validity once it's been scanned. Also, if the election board isn't required to comply with Indiana law, its handling of challenged mail-in absentee ballots will differ from what every other Indiana county does, violating the mandate in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT