Court issues judgment in absentee ballot case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion Circuit Court has outlined the required procedures for dealing with the county's absentee ballots following a suit that accused the Marion County Election Board of not following statute.

Raymond J. Schoettle, Erica Pugh, and the Marion County Republican Party filed the complaint Oct. 31, 2008, alleging the Marion County Election Board stopped following statutes regarding absentee ballots - whether done in person or by mail - after the special election in March 2008 to elect the replacement for Congresswoman Julia Carson, who died in December 2007.

Instead of processing the challenged ballots as provisional ballots and keeping them separate, the suit claimed the ballots are immediately put through the machines, creating a risk that fraudulent ballots are being counted. The suit also claimed the election board hasn't issued specific instructions to its precinct election boards regarding challenges to absentee ballots and instructed the precincts to count all absentee ballots.

Marion Circuit Judge Theodore Sosin ordered that the election board treat all challenged mail-in absentee votes as provisional ballots and set them aside for future resolution by the election board. The order also required the board to instruct all inspectors and precinct board members to follow the procedures outlined in the Indiana Election Day Handbook.

The Indiana Court of Appeals dissolved the preliminary injunction with a 2-1 vote, but on the same day the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated Judge Sosin's original order. In March, the high court remanded the case.

The parties in Raymond J. Schoettle, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, No. 49C01-0810-PL-049131, reached a settlement in late November and Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg issued a seven-page consent judgment Monday. That judgment binds the parties and the Marion County Democratic Party, which intervened after the case was filed.

"The record in this case demonstrates that voters and election workers are often confused about the requirements and procedures involved in absentee ballot voting and challenging," wrote Judge Rosenberg before laying out what procedures workers and challengers must follow regarding absentee voting.

The judgment includes:

- The chairs of each major political party in Marion County shall be allowed to appoint an equal number of absentee ballot clerks to review all absentee ballot applications and envelopes received by mail prior to their delivery for counting on Election Day.

- The election board maintains the power to determine whether an absentee ballot envelope signature is genuine and the precinct board will rule on the validity of any dispute regarding if a signature is genuine.

- The election board will maintain and provide to the major political parties a list of all absentee ballots for which notations are made to the precinct board.

- If a proper challenge is made, the absentee ballot may be put in the ballot box only if the absentee voter's application is properly executed to be considered an affidavit. Otherwise, a proper challenge shall be treated as a provisional ballot and returned to the election board for further disposition under election law and the consent judgment.

The consent judgment also states that placement of a name on a home foreclosure list or a voter getting an eviction notice isn't a sufficient basis for a challenge. The election board is also required to give to challengers and precinct board members written instructions before any election.

The consent judgment applies only to absentee balloting and does not affect in-person, non-absentee voting.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.