What about the votes?

October 30, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals is hearing arguments today in the Lake County early-voting satellite locations case, and as of this blog posting, hasn’t ruled on the issue.

It’s up in the air right now how the court may rule, but if it decides the Democrats on the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration opened these satellite sites without statutory authority, what’s going to happen to those early votes?

Will they still count? Will those voters be forced to come in on Election Day, adding to the lines and wait that the establishment of early-voting sites was supposed to ease? Just imagine the headaches a ruling invalidating the votes would create. If the judges do invalidate the votes because the election board didn’t follow statute, let that be a lesson to election boards around the state to always follow the law.

Is it possible for the appellate court to rule that the sites never should have been opened and still allow the votes to count?

And then, to throw another thought into the mix, there’s a good chance one party will appeal whatever the Court of Appeals decides. Can the case make it to the Supreme Court before Election Day? What would happen to those early votes if the Supreme Court decides to invalidate them after the election? The races that are extremely close could be decided by those early votes.

It creates quite a legal pickle, doesn’t it?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT