ILNews

Unslated candidate files suit against Marion County Election Board

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Democratic candidate for state representative for Indiana’s District 100 who was not slated by his party is suing the Marion County Election Board after the board ordered his election materials seized before the primary election for violating Ind. Code 3-14-1-2.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit in federal court in Indianapolis Tuesday, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Zachary Mulholland. Mulholland sought to be the slated candidate for the Democratic Party for District 100, but Dan Forestal was slated and endorsed by the party.

Mulholland ran against the slate and printed a flyer for the May 2012 primary that listed various Democratic candidates, including himself. According to the lawsuit, the flyer was not misleading or fraudulent, and did not imply or state Mulholland was endorsed by the Democratic Party.

On May 8, 2012, primary day, the Marion County Election Board found the flyer violated I.C. 3-14-1-2 because the names of the candidates appearing on the slate and the consent of the candidates to be listed were not submitted to the board within five days of printing or distributing the material. The Marion County Sheriff’s Department assisted in collecting the voting materials, according to the suit.

The lawsuit claims that the board cannot subpoena Mulholland to appear before it and discuss the distribution of the election materials because I.C. 3-14-1-2 was found unconstitutional in Ogden v. Marendt, 1:03-CV-415, (S.D. Ind. 2003).

Because he ran against the slate, Mulholland won’t be able to be slated for at least six years pursuant to Marion County Democratic Party rules, the suit says. He wants to run for future offices and produce flyers that are “slates” as specified in I.C. 3-14-1-2. “Slate” is defined as “a sample ballot, reproduction of an official ballot, or a listing of candidates: (1) having the names or numbers of more than one (1) candidate for nomination at a primary election; and (2) that expresses support for more than one (1) of the candidates set forth on the ballot or list.”

“Zachary Mulholland is currently having Indiana Code 3-14-1-2 enforced against him through the as-of-yet unissued, but ordered subpoena, and is threatened with enforcement against him of the law in the future by the defendant when he runs for future offices,” the suit says. “Plaintiff is being caused irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.”

The suit, Zachary Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board, 1:12-CV-1502, seeks to prevent the election board from enforcing the statute in question in any manner.

Mulholland is currently a research analyst at the Indiana University Public Policy Institute and received his law degree from I.U. Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT