ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT