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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT