DOCSLIB.ORG

HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1365

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

First Regular Session of the 122nd General Assembly (2021) PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type. Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution. Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2020 Regular Session of the General Assembly. HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1365 AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning elections. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: SECTION 1. IC 3-5-2-1.8 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 1.8. "Anomaly" means an action or response by a voting system or electronic poll book that: (1) does not conform with the specifications or perform as certified and is critical to the administration of elections; (2) causes a delay or disruption to voting or vote tabulation; or (3) occurs due to a root cause that is unable to be determined within forty-eight (48) hours after initial discovery by the vendor or county. SECTION 2. IC 3-5-2-16.3, AS ADDED BY P.L.76-2014, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 16.3. (a) "De minimis change", with respect to a certified voting system's or a certified electronic poll book's hardware, software, technical documentation, or data, refers to a change to the hardware, the nature of which will not materially alter the system's reliability, functionality, capability, or operation. A change is not a de minimis change if (b) For a hardware change to qualify as a de minimis change, the HEA 1365 — CC 1 2 change must: (1) maintain, unaltered, the reliability, functionality, capability, and operability of a system; and (2) ensure that when hardware is replaced, the original hardware and the replacement hardware are electronically and mechanically interchangeable and have identical functionality and tolerances. (c) The following are not de minimis changes: (1) Software and firmware modifications. (2) the change has reasonable and identifiable potential to affect the voting system's or electronic poll book's operation and compliance with applicable voting system standards. Indiana law. SECTION 3. IC 3-5-2-20.5, AS ADDED BY P.L.64-2014, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 20.5. "Electronic poll book" means the combination of mechanical, electromechanical, and electronic equipment (including the software, firmware, and documentation, and backend infrastructure and services, including cloud platform services, required to program, control, and support the equipment) that is used to access and maintain the electronic poll list. SECTION 4. IC 3-5-4-1.3, AS ADDED BY P.L.278-2019, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 1.3. (a) Not later than the close of one (1) business day after a person files a declaration of candidacy, a request for placement on the presidential primary ballot, a certificate of nomination by a convention, a certificate of nomination by petition, a certification of candidate selection to fill a ballot vacancy, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate in the office of the election division or circuit court clerk, the election division or circuit court clerk shall send a statement to the candidate by: (1) hand delivery; (2) first class United States mail; or (3) electronic mail, if an electronic mail address has been provided by the person; to the mailing address or electronic mail address set forth in the document filed with the office. (b) The statement must set forth the following: (1) That the candidate has filed the document described in subsection (a). (2) The name of the candidate. (3) The office for which the individual is a candidate. (4) The date on which the document was filed. HEA 1365 — CC 1 3 (5) That acceptance of the document for filing does not prevent the filing from being challenged in the manner set forth in this title. (c) The circuit court clerk shall enter: (1) the name and other information provided by each candidate for an elected office or a political party office who files a document described in subsection (a) with the county election board; and (2) the text of a public question certified to the county election board under IC 3-10-9; into the election management module of the statewide voter registration system not later than the deadline for estimating the number of ballots required to be printed under IC 3-11-4-10. SECTION 5. IC 3-5-4-12, AS ADDED BY P.L.135-2020, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 12. (a) Not later than July 1, 2020, Each county shall enter into an agreement with the secretary of state to use a threat intelligence and enterprise security company designated by the secretary of state to provide hardware, software, and services to: (1) investigate cybersecurity attacks; (2) protect against malicious software; and (3) analyze information technology security risks. (b) The agreement to provide services to a county under this section: (1) has no effect on any threat intelligence and enterprise security service provided to the county by any other agreement with a provider or by any county employee or contractor; and (2) must be designed to complement any existing service agreement or service used by the county; when the county enters into the agreement. This section expires January 1, 2023. SECTION 6. IC 3-5-7-5.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 5.5. (a) This section does not apply to any of the following: (1) A voter verifiable paper audit trail. (2) The return printed by the automatic tabulating machine under IC 3-12-3-2. (3) The paper vote total printouts from the electronic voting system under IC 3-12-3.5-2. (4) The name of a candidate printed on a ballot card by a marking device. (b) The requirements of this section apply only to a voting HEA 1365 — CC 1 4 system initially certified for marketing and use in Indiana elections after January 1, 2022. (c) If a candidate's legal name designated under this chapter includes a universally recognized pronunciation symbol, including an accent, hyphen, tilde, or umlaut, a: (1) ballot; (2) voting system screen; (3) voting system activation card; (4) voting system file; and (5) voting system results report; must display the symbol as part of the candidate's name. SECTION 7. IC 3-6-5-17 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 17. (a) Each county election board shall submit a report to the election division after each primary, special, municipal, and general election describing the activities of the board during the previous year. The board shall include the following in the report: (1) Information relating to the expenses of office maintenance and elections within the county or political subdivisions within the county. (2) A copy of the statement of the county election board containing the votes cast for each candidate and on each public question in each precinct at the last election preceding the submission of the report. (3) Any additional information relating to elections that the commission prescribes. (b) The report described in subsection (a) must be postmarked, hand delivered, or transmitted to the election division using the computerized list under IC 3-7-26.3 not later than fourteen (14) days after each election. (c) The election division shall send a copy of each report to the office not later than ten (10) days after receiving the report. SECTION 8. IC 3-6-5-17.5, AS AMENDED BY P.L.128-2015, SECTION 25, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 17.5. (a) As required by 52 U.S.C. 20302(c), each county election board shall submit a report to the election division after each general election setting forth the combined number of absentee ballots: (1) transmitted by the county election board to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the election; and (2) returned by absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters and cast in the election. HEA 1365 — CC 1 5 (b) The report must be: (1) postmarked or hand delivered transmitted to the election division using the computerized list under IC 3-7-26.3 not later than fourteen (14) days after the election; and (2) in the form prescribed by the federal Election Assistance Commission under Section 703(b) of HAVA (52 U.S.C. 20302 (note)). SECTION 9. IC 3-6-6-38 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021]: Sec. 38. (a) As used in this section, "omitted precinct election officer" refers to a precinct election officer that a precinct is not required to have by a resolution adopted under this section. (b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, a county election board may adopt a resolution to provide that specified precincts or all precincts of the county are not required to have any or all of the following precinct election officers: (1) Sheriffs.
Recommended publications
  • Mclain, Joseph E **** This Is an EXTERNAL Email. Exercise Caution. DO NOT Open Attachments Or Click Links from Unknown Senders O

    Mclain, Joseph E **** This Is an EXTERNAL Email. Exercise Caution. DO NOT Open Attachments Or Click Links from Unknown Senders O

    Mclain, Joseph E From: Drake Abramson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:06 PM To: Elections Subject: In-Person Voting **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** To the Indiana Election Commission: In-person voting is a sacred right, and time-tested tradition for Hoosier voters all across the state of Indiana. All though these are unprecedented times, we should continue to preserve these long held traditions of in-person voting on election day. There are countless ways in which we can provide safe training and resources to county election administrators to ensure election day is safe for all those participating. There are numerous examples that show voting by mail is significantly more susceptible to voter fraud than election day voting. This can be shown through some very specific examples including some of the following I have mentioned below: Max Judson, Sullivan County Council member – Fraudulent use of absentee ballots – Pled guilty to three counts of voter fraud Doug Campbell, Mayor of Austin Indiana – Fraudulent use of absentee ballots – Completed an incomplete ballot for a voter Michael Marshall, Jennings County Democrat Party worker – Fraudulent use of absentee ballots – Fraudulently submitted absentee ballot applications for his son, brother and former roommate. I understand that we are going through unprecedented times but in order to keep stability in our state, we must adjust and proceed accordingly. I believe with proper training of county election administrators, we can ensure safety when voting in-person on election day.
  • Mayoral Elections in Indiana 2003–2015 Mayoral Elections in Indiana

    Mayoral Elections in Indiana 2003–2015 Mayoral Elections in Indiana

    Center for Local Elections in American Politics MayoralMayoral ElectionsElections inin IndianaIndiana 2003–20152003–2015 May 2016 Melissa Marschall John Lappie sustainable so that it can continue to provide data, research and information to scholars, practitioners and policymakers long into the future. By creating a database that updates automatically — and About the Center for Local Elections in constantly — we are able to ensure we have the most current American Politics information available to help researchers, journalists and others effectively study government. While the presidential campaign The Center for Local Elections in American Politics (LEAP) is continues to generate headlines, the heart of democracy is at developing pathbreaking solutions to the problem of collecting, the local level. We believe LEAP’s database will allow us to digitizing and disseminating data on local elections. More better understand the process and outcomes of these elections. information is available at http://www.leap-elections.org/. The United States is viewed as an archetype of democracy, yet fundamental questions about the nature of our government and its electoral processes and outcomes are often difficult to answer because of a simple problem: a lack of data. Because elections are decentralized in this country, basic Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research is a information about local contests is difficult to access. To date, “think and do” tank that advances understanding of the there has been no comprehensive source of data on U.S. local challenges facing Houston and other urban centers through elections. The situation has vexed political scientists, journalists research, policy analysis and public outreach.
  • 2018 Summary of New Laws

    2018 Summary of New Laws

    2018 SUMMARY OF NEW LAWS State Senator Senate District 12 Blake Doriot SECOND REGULAR SESSION AND FIRST SPECIAL SESSION OF THE 120TH INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2018 SUMMARY OF NEW LAWS PREPARED BY THE SENATE MAJORITY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE SENATE MAJORITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE PREFACE This document is a comprehensive summary of the laws passed by the 2018 Indiana General Assembly. It includes 210 bills passed during the Regular Legislative Session completed on March 14, 2018, and 5 bills passed during the Special Legislative Session held May 14, 2018. The full digest of each passed bill is listed in numerical order in the first section of the document, followed by a table showing all author/sponsor information as well as committee and floor vote totals. The addendum at the back includes information on the General Assembly’s 2018 actions regarding the Governor’s veto of HEA 1523-2017, a listing of 2018 passed bills by the Senate Committees in which they were heard, and public law/bill number conversion charts. Please note that bills from the 2018 Special Session are listed with “-SS” at the end of the bill number throughout this book. Since 4 of the 5 Special Session bills were largely identical to bills that were considered but did not pass during the Regular Session, the listing of 2018 passed bills by Senate Committee includes the Special Session bills under the Committee that heard their Regular Session counterpart bills. For further information concerning 2018 new laws, please contact either the Senate Majority Attorney's Office at (317) 232-9415 or the Legislative Information Center of the Legislative Services Agency at (317) 232-9856.
  • Understanding the 2016 Gubernatorial Elections by Jennifer M

    Understanding the 2016 Gubernatorial Elections by Jennifer M

    GOVERNORS The National Mood and the Seats in Play: Understanding the 2016 Gubernatorial Elections By Jennifer M. Jensen and Thad Beyle With a national anti-establishment mood and 12 gubernatorial elections—eight in states with a Democrat as sitting governor—the Republicans were optimistic that they would strengthen their hand as they headed into the November elections. Republicans already held 31 governor- ships to the Democrats’ 18—Alaska Gov. Bill Walker is an Independent—and with about half the gubernatorial elections considered competitive, Republicans had the potential to increase their control to 36 governors’ mansions. For their part, Democrats had a realistic chance to convert only a couple of Republican governorships to their party. Given the party’s win-loss potential, Republicans were optimistic, in a good position. The Safe Races North Dakota Races in Delaware, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah Republican incumbent Jack Dalrymple announced and Washington were widely considered safe for he would not run for another term as governor, the incumbent party. opening the seat up for a competitive Republican primary. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Delaware Stenehjem received his party’s endorsement at Popular Democratic incumbent Jack Markell was the Republican Party convention, but multimil- term-limited after fulfilling his second term in office. lionaire Doug Burgum challenged Stenehjem in Former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the primary despite losing the party endorsement. eldest son of former Vice President Joe Biden, was Lifelong North Dakota resident Burgum had once considered a shoo-in to succeed Markell before founded a software company, Great Plains Soft- a 2014 recurrence of brain cancer led him to stay ware, that was eventually purchased by Microsoft out of the race.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    NOS. 07-21, 07-25 In The Supreme Court of the United States WILLIAM C RAWFORD, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, ET AL., Respondents. INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. TODD ROKITA, ET AL., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD JAMES B. OSBORN JON LARAMORE OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL Counsel of Record CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS BAKER AND DANIELS 1601 CITY COUNTY BUILDING SUITE 2700 200 EAST WASHINGTON STREET 300 NORTH MERIDIAN ST. INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 317.327.5432 317.237.0300 [email protected] [email protected] Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTION PRESENTED When Indiana’s Voter Identification Statute precludes some otherwise-qualified persons from voting and there is little or no evidence showing the in- person voter impersonation fraud the statute is designed to prevent, what standard should this Court apply in evaluating the constitutionality of the statute? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS..................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. iv STATEMENT ............................. 1 The Marion County Election Board ......... 3 Time-tested systems were in place to detect in- person voter impersonation fraud before the challenged statute was enacted ............ 6 Election accessibility under the Voter Identification Statute .................... 8 Provisional ballots were not counted in the 2007 municipal election because of the Voter Identification Statute .................... 8 No evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud.................................. 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................ 10 ARGUMENT............................. 11 iii Because the right to vote is vitally important and the evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud is sparse, the Court should closely scrutinize the statute.............
  • The Political Career of Stephen W

    The Political Career of Stephen W

    37? N &/J /V z 7 PORTRAIT OF AN AGE: THE POLITICAL CAREER OF STEPHEN W. DORSEY, 1868-1889 DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Sharon K. Lowry, M.A. Denton, Texas May, 19 80 @ Copyright by Sharon K. Lowry 1980 Lowry, Sharon K., Portrait of an Age: The Political Career of Stephen W. Dorsey, 1868-1889. Doctor of Philosophy (History), May, 1980, 447 pp., 6 tables, 1 map, bibliography, 194 titles. The political career of Stephen Dorsey provides a focus for much of the Gilded Age. Dorsey was involved in many significant events of the period. He was a carpetbagger during Reconstruction and played a major role in the Compromise of 1877. He was a leader of the Stalwart wing of the Republican party, and he managed Garfield's 1880 presidential campaign. The Star Route Frauds was one of the greatest scandals of a scandal-ridden era, and Dorsey was a central figure in these frauds. Dorsey tried to revive his political career in New Mexico after his acquittal in the Star Route Frauds, but his reputation never recovered from the notoriety he received at the hands of the star route prosecutors. Like many of his contemporaries in Gilded Age politics, Dorsey left no personal papers which might have assisted a biographer. Sources for this study included manuscripts in the Library of Congress and the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives in Santa Fe; this study also made use of newspapers, records in the National Archives, congressional investigations of Dorsey printed in the reports and documents of the House and Senate, and the transcripts of the star route trials.
  • 2013 Indiana Election Legislation Summary Prepared by the Indiana Election Division

    2013 Indiana Election Legislation Summary Prepared by the Indiana Election Division

    2013 Indiana Election Legislation Summary Prepared by the Indiana Election Division This document summarizes the election-related legislation that passed the Indiana General Assembly and became law in 2013. Bills may be obtained by co ntacting the Legislative Information Center at 200 West Washington Street, Room 230, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2731; (317) 232-9856, or by downloading documents from the General Assembly’s website at www.in.gov/legislative . This document is intended to serve as an overview of information concerning Indiana election laws. Although the Election Division takes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information in this document, where your legal rights are involved, do not rely on this document. Instead, review the law yourself or consult with your attorney. The 2013 Regular Session of the Indiana General Assembly enacted the following election- related bills: Public Law 14-2013 (Senate Enrolled Act 116): Voter Identification Numbers Public Law 147-2013 (House Enrolled Act 1186): Incorporation of Towns Public Law 153-2013 (House Enrolled Act 1391): Election Division Voter List Maintenance Duties; Budget, Expenditures, and Contracts Public Law 159-2013 (House Enrolled Act 1482): Expungement of Criminal Record- Impact on Candidates and Officeholders Public Law 186-2013 (Senate Enrolled Act 250): Petition Carriers Public Law 194-2013 (Senate Enrolled Act 518): Miscellaneous Election Matters Public Law 202-2013 (Senate Enrolled Act 343): Government Reorganization Public Law 205-2013 (House Enrolled Act 1001):
  • Risk Limiting Audits in Indiana

    Risk Limiting Audits in Indiana

    Looking beyond Colorado: Risk Limiting Audits in Indiana Jay Bagga, Co-Director Indiana Voting System Technical Oversight Program (VSTOP) Election Audit Summit, MIT December 7, 2018 VSTOP • In existence since 2007 • Based at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana • Funded by the Indiana Secretary of State through the General Assembly • Some activities of VSTOP • Develop and propose procedures and standards for the certification, testing, acquisition, functioning, training, and security for voting systems and electronic poll books used to conduct elections in Indiana • Recommend voting systems and electronic poll books for certification in the state Indiana • 92 counties • 5 voting system vendors and 5 electronic poll book vendors • About half of the counties use DREs. The other half use OPSCANS or a combination with DREs. • One of the first states to certify electronic poll books, in 2013 http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx • Some Audit requirements – IC 3-12-3.5-8 http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx Integrity of Elections and Security of Election Systems • Physical and Cybersecurity of Election Equipment • Indiana SB 327 on Physical and Cyber Security (Signed by the Governor on March 15, 2018) • The Governor of Indiana established the Indiana Executive Council on Cybersecurity (Council) (January 2017) • “… to form an understanding of Indiana’s cyber risk profile, identify priorities, establish a strategic framework of Indiana’s cybersecurity initiatives, and leverage the body of talent to stay on the forefront of the cyber risk environment.” Elections Committee of the Council • Chaired by the Secretary of State • Members include county clerks and election officials, SVRS, Indiana Elections Division and VSTOP.
  • Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 1

    Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 1

    Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 1 SYMPOSIUM HOOSIER BRIDESMAIDS MARGO M. LAMBERT* A. CHRISTOPHER BRYANT** Indiana proudly proclaims itself the “Crossroads of America.”1 While some northeast-corridor cynics might deride the boast as a paraphrase for flyover country, there is no denying the political significance of the Hoosier State’s geographical and cultural centrality. As one of Indiana’s most celebrated historians has observed, “[b]y the beginning of the twentieth century Indiana was often cited as the most typical of American states, perhaps because Hoosiers in this age of transition generally resisted radical change and were able usually to balance moderate change with due attention to the continuities of life and culture.”2 Throughout the Gilded Age, elections in the state were so closely fought that the winning party rarely claimed more than slimmest majority.3 At the time, Indiana tended to favor Republicans over Democrats, but the races were close with Democrats claiming their share of victories.4 During these years, voter turnout remained high in presidential elections, with Indiana ranging from the eightieth to the ninetieth percentiles, no doubt a product of the closeness of the contests. Such voter turnout substantially exceeded that typical of surrounding states.5 Hoosiers liked to politick. The state’s high voter participation may also have been, in some part, attributable to its relaxed voting laws for adult males during the nineteenth * Associate Professor of History, University of Cincinnati Blue Ash College. ** Rufus King Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law. The authors, proud Hoosiers by birth and Buckeyes by professional opportunity, thank first and foremost Brad Boswell for entrusting us with the opportunity to open the March 29, 2018 Symposium.
  • 2017 Indiana Commencement

    2017 Indiana Commencement

    Commencement SATURDAY, OC TOB ER 21, 2017 INDIAN APOL IS, I NDIANA Memb&r Governors Alaska Nevada The Honorable The Honorable Bill Walker Brian Sandoval Arizona New Mexico The Honorable The Honorable Doug Ducey Susana Martinez California North Dakota The Honorable The Honorable Jerry Brown Doug Burgum Colorado Oklahoma The Honorable The Honorable John Hickenlooper Mary Fallin Guam Oregon The Honorable The Honorable Eddie Baza Calvo Kate Brown Hawaii South Dakota The Honorable The Honorable David Ige Dennis Daugaard Idaho Texas The Honorable The Honorable C. L. “Butch” Otter Greg Abbott Indiana Utah The Honorable The Honorable Eric Holcomb Gary R. Herbert Montana Washington The Honorable The Honorable Steve Bullock Jay R. Inslee Nebraska Wyoming The Honorable The Honorable Pete Ricketts Matt Mead -2- B(ard (f Trustees Chairman The Honorable Jim Geringer Director, Policy & Public Sector, ESRI Governor, State of Wyoming (1995 – 2003) John W. Bluford III Tammy Johns President, Bluford Healthcare Leadership Institute; CEO, Strategy & Talent; Former President, Truman Medical Centers Former Executive, Manpower Group Cole Clark Lenny Mendonca Executive Director, Higher Education Client Director Emeritus, McKinsey & Company Relations Deloitte Services, LP; Former Global VP for Education and Research, Scott D. Pulsipher Oracle Corporation President, Western Governors University Dr. Therese (Terry) Crane David Simmons President, Crane Associates; President, Simmons Media Group Former Executive with Apple and AOL Dr. Samuel H. Smith Robert Evanson
  • INDIANA's 1988 GUBERNATORIAL RESIDENCY CHALLENGE Joseph

    INDIANA's 1988 GUBERNATORIAL RESIDENCY CHALLENGE Joseph

    INDIANA’S 1988 GUBERNATORIAL RESIDENCY CHALLENGE Joseph Hadden Hogsett Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of History Indiana University June 2007 Accepted by the Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Robert G. Barrows, Ph.D., Chair Elizabeth Brand Monroe, Ph.D. Master’s Thesis Committee William A. Blomquist, Ph.D. ii Dedicated to the memory of my colleague and friend, Jon D. Krahulik iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I take this opportunity to thank the people who helped make this paper possible. Dr. Robert G. Barrows served as my seminar professor, my mentor and the Chair of this thesis committee. Many other graduate students have acknowledged his sound advice, his guidance, his editing and his sense of humor. All of those also apply here. In my case, however, above all, I owe him a debt of gratitude for patience. This paper began as a concept in his seminar in the spring of 2002, but was not finished for five years. Even if Dr. Barrows had known then how flawed and distracted the author would prove to be, I am convinced he still would have agreed to chair the project. His patience is a gift. I also acknowledge the advice offered unconditionally by the committee’s other members, Dr. Elizabeth Brand Monroe and Dr. William A. Blomquist. Though they, like Dr. Barrows, possessed sufficient probable cause to notify authorities of a “missing person”, both exercised incredible restraint and, in so doing, no doubt violated some antiquainted canon of academic protocol.
  • Case 1:12-Cv-01603-RLY-DML Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 7 Pageid #: 1

    Case 1:12-Cv-01603-RLY-DML Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 7 Pageid #: 1

    Case 1:12-cv-01603-RLY-DML Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION COMMON CAUSE INDIANA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:12-cv-1603 ) INDIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, in ) her official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF / NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTE Introductory Statement 1. Elections to the Marion Superior Court are unique in Indiana, and perhaps in the nation. Under Indiana Code § 33-33-49-13, judges on the 36-judge Marion Superior Court—who serve six-year terms—are elected in two (2) cycles: twenty (20) seats are filled by election this year and every six (6) years thereafter; and sixteen (16) seats are filled by election in 2014 and every six (6) years thereafter. However, each of the major political parties—the Democratic and Republican parties—nominates, through primary elections, candidates to fill precisely half of the seats to be filled. In 2012 and in recent history, no candidate for Marion Superior Court other than those nominated by the major political parties has qualified for the ballot at a general election. The general election is therefore of no significance whatsoever because the ballot only contains the names of judges who will ultimately be elected; rather, the only meaningful votes cast for Marion Superior Court are cast in the primary elections for the major political parties. Thus, a person who does not vote in a primary election is never afforded an opportunity to cast a meaningful 1 Case 1:12-cv-01603-RLY-DML Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2 vote for any judgeship on the Marion Superior Court.