Electoral College documents in Indianapolis court

December 7, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Those of you who paid attention in government classes or have a nose for history may already know the role the U.S. District Courts play with Electoral College Documents. I recently learned that a court in each state is required to house a set of Electoral College documents for safekeeping.

In Indiana, that court is the Indianapolis courthouse in the Southern District of Indiana. The requirement goes back to an 1847 act of Congress and typically the documents are held in the nearest U.S. District Court to the state capitals. The documents are a certificate of ascertainment and the other is the final vote and is signed by the electors who took part.

Doria Lynch, the court historian for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, invited me over to the Indianapolis courthouse to take a look at the documents, which date back to 1924.
 Lynch isn’t sure why the court doesn’t have any documents from before that year. She also said the court hasn’t received this year’s election documents yet.

Lynch showed me the certificates Thursday afternoon. She even had the original envelopes used to mail the documents to the court. It was interesting to see not only how the forms and signatures changed and evolved as the years have gone by, but you could also see how Indiana’s Electoral College votes shrank from 15 in 1924 to the current 11. Click here to see the electoral college document choosing Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Garner.

(Please forgive the somewhat blurry photos of the documents I snapped while looking through them. I hope they give you an idea of what the forms look like.)

What’s the reason the courts are involved? To make sure there was a backup in case the originals were lost or invalidated. Forget email and fax machines, those documents used to be carried on horseback and by carriage, according to Miriam Vincent, staff attorney for the National Archives and Records Administration. She discussed the role the courts play in the Electoral College process in a news release from the United States Courts.

The 51 designated courts are required to keep the documents in a safe place. Under federal record disposition guidelines for the U.S. District courts, the courts may dispose of the documents six months after their date of issuance. The courts have never been asked to produce the backup versions.


“There is still a need to do things on paper, and there is still a need for redundancy,” Vincent said of the Electoral College certificates. “Some may see this as a relic of the 19th century, but the truth is that it’s worked since 1847. Congress has enough other things to focus on that I don’t know of any idea to monkey around with this at this point.”

Electors cast their votes Dec. 17 and the final tallies of the Electoral College will be ratified before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.  

 




ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT