ILNews

Justices accept certified question on misdemeanor voting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken a question proposed by a federal court in a suit challenging the law that prevents voting by people with misdemeanor convictions.

Judge William T. Lawrence of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana certified the question in January for the high court to consider in the case of David R. Snyder v. J. Bradley King, et al., No. 1:10-CV-1019. The question posed is: “Does the term ‘infamous crime’ as used in Article II, Section 8, of the Indiana Constitution include conviction of and imprisonment for a misdemeanor battery, so as to permit removal of the convicted person’s voter registration from the official list of registered voters pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 3-7-13-4 and 3-7-46-1 and -2?”

The justices accepted the certified question Feb. 21.

David Snyder, a South Bend resident, claims that state officials wrongly removed him from a statewide voter registration list because of a 2008 conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery that led to his incarceration for two months in early 2009. St. Joseph County Clerk Rita Glenn told Snyder in a letter that his statewide voter registration was being cancelled immediately pursuant to Indiana Code 3-7-46, and that I.C. Section 3-7-13-4(a), and I.C. sections 3-7-46-1 and -2 also allow for his removal from the statewide voter registry.

Snyder was unable to vote in subsequent elections. He claims the statutes violate the federal and state constitutions, are in opposition of Indiana appellate caselaw that holds voting rights can be restricted only for felony convictions, and violates several federal acts.

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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT