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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT