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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues