ILNews

COA: Keep early-voting sites open

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a special judge's ruling to keep early-voting sites open in Lake County, holding that even if election law was violated in establishing the sites, public interest in having the sites would keep them open.

A three-judge appellate panel met an issue of first impression in interpreting Indiana Code Sections 3-11-10-26 and -26.3 in John B. Curley, et al. v. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, et al., No. 45A03-0810-CV-512. Plaintiffs John Curley and Jim Brown appealed Lake Superior Court Special Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider's ruling to enforce a preliminary injunction keeping open satellite early-voting offices in East Chicago, Gary, and Hammond.

The appellate court focused on two questions of law: whether in-person absentee voting locations at the Circuit Court Clerk's offices are "satellite offices" under I.C. Sections 3-11-10-26 and -26.3; and whether I.C. Section 3-11-10-26(a)(1) requires the election board to hold in-person absentee voting only in the election board's office.

The appellate court held the early-voting locations in the offices of the Circuit Clerk in Gary, Hammond and East Chicago aren't considered satellite offices, so they aren't required to be open by a unanimous vote of the election board, wrote Judge Edward Najam. According to the way the statute is written, a satellite office is any office other than the office of the Circuit Court Clerk or the office of the election board. Since in Lake County, the Circuit Court Clerk has offices in each of the four courthouses, Section 26 provides for absentee voting in all of the offices maintained by the clerk of the Circuit Court, wrote the judge.

The Court of Appeals found some ambiguity between I.C. Section 3-6-5.2-6 and Section 3-11-10-26(a)(1), and wrote they are subject to more than one reasonable and plausible interpretation. The appellate court concluded the election board reasonably interpreted Section 26(a)(1) when it designated the office of the Circuit Court Clerk as a location for in-person absentee voting, wrote Judge Najam.

But even if the plaintiffs could show the election board clearly violated the law, public interest "weighs heavily on the side of" the election board's decision and the preliminary injunction keeping the offices open, wrote the judge, citing Indiana Supreme Court precedent on election law.

The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court. Judge Najam wrote in a footnote that they've declined to order entry of final judgment and believe the course is for the parties to present their arguments to the trial court for it to enter final judgment interpreting the relevant statutes.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT