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. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT