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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT