DOCSLIB.ORG

Mayoral Elections in Indiana 2003–2015 Mayoral Elections in Indiana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. By collaborating and other researchers for decades. As a result, much of what with civic and political leaders, the Kinder Institute aims to help we think we know about local government, particularly trends Houston and other cities. For more, visit www.kinder.rice.edu. over time, is based on anecdotes and generalizations — not empirical evidence. We’re helping to change that. With a grant from the National Science Foundation in 2010, principal investigators Melissa Marschall and Paru Shah launched the Local Elections in America Project (LEAP). Since then, LEAP has developed The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation advances the most comprehensive database of local election results in journalism in the digital age and invests in the vitality existence. In 2015, the Knight Foundation provided funding of communities where the Knight brothers owned to turn LEAP into the Center for Local Elections in American newspapers. The Knight Foundation focuses on projects Politics within Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research. that promote informed and engaged communities and LEAP developed a suite of software application tools lead to transformational change. The Knight Foundation to systematically collect, digitize and disseminate data on Community Initiative focuses on 26 communities. elections across the U.S. LEAP’s innovation was in creating a Resident program directors oversee grantmaking in eight digital archive of past election results, as well as automating communities: Akron, Ohio; Charlotte, N.C.; Detroit; Macon, data collection for current and future elections. Ga.; Miami; Philadelphia; San Jose, Calif.; and St. Paul, Minn. At present, the database contains results from 22 states In the remaining 18 communities, the Knight Foundation that, in some cases, date as far back as the 1980s. The database partners with other community foundations. The foundation contains the names of local candidates, their party affiliations, has invested more than $841 million in community initiatives the number of votes they received, how those votes were cast since its creation in 1950. The Knight Foundation wants (e.g., in person, by absentee ballot or by early voting) and its national network of learning to inspire the actions of whether they ran at-large or by district (and the district name residents in each of its communities and help build a or number). Other fields include government level (county, better democracy and a successful future. For more, visit municipal, school district or special district), office type www.knightfoundation.org. (executive, legislative, judicial/law enforcement, other) and election type (primary, general, runoff, special or initiative/ referendum). In addition, each candidate record is geocoded, Future Reports making connectivity to other data seamless. We have records of hundreds of thousands of candidates who’ve run for office The Indiana study is the third of several reports on municipal in the U.S. elections to be released in 2016 by the Kinder Institute for The database is dynamic and continues to be updated Urban Research’s Center for Local Elections in American as new elections come online, which is a truly pathbreaking Politics. A report on California and Kentucky has already feature. And, while we continue to add new election results, been published. Forthcoming reports will examine trends in we also are expanding data collection to other states and municipal contests in Virginia, Louisiana, Minnesota, South developing new technology that will not only make it possible Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona and Washington. to expedite the collection of data that’s ordinarily difficult to access, but will allow us to enhance our data by adding new Marschall, Melissa and John Lappie. 2016. “Mayoral Elections fields that measure other candidate, election and campaign in Indiana, 2003–2015.” Center for Local Elections in American features. Politics. Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University, Finally, we are working with the Kinder Institute and a Houston, Texas. large network of stakeholders to make the database and LEAP Mayoral Elections in Indiana, 2003–2015 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 2. List of Tables and Figures 2 3. Overview of Mayoral Elections in Indiana 3 4. Mayor and Mayoral Elections in Indiana 3 5. Mayoral Elections 4 Demographics City Size Trends Over Time 6. References 10 7. Appendix 11 Mayoral Elections in Indiana, 2003–2015 1. Executive Summary Political observers’ assumptions about local election trends are often based on anecdotes, incomplete observation or simply conventional wisdom. However, the Kinder Institute for Urban Research and its Center for Local Elections in American Politics (LEAP) offer a first-of-its-kind way to analyze elections. Several important trends emerge in Indiana. The analysis of election data reveals that more than 20 percent of all mayoral elections in Indiana cities go uncontested. The trend is especially pronounced in the state’s smallest cities. The report also shows that during the study period, there has been a steady decline in turnout in both primary and general elections. Background The study focuses on elections of Indiana mayors in the state’s 159 cities. The dataset includes the results of mayoral elections in all Indiana cities for the 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 elections. It includes 474 general elections and 706 primary elections. Methodology LEAP software automates the collection of election results, resulting in a database containing records on municipal elections in 22 states dating as far back as the 1980s. The Indiana dataset is based off of information uploaded to the Indiana Secretary of State website. It includes information on general elections in Indiana from Nov. 4, 2003 to Nov. 3, 2015, and primary elections in Indiana from May 1, 2003 to May 5, 2015. Findings • More than 20 percent of all mayoral elections go uncontested. This issue is especially acute in the state’s smallest cities. In cities with populations below 5,000, nearly 29 percent of mayoral elections go uncontested, compared to just 13 percent in the state’s largest cities. • The Republicans have made considerable gains in Mayoral elections, going from winning only 42 percent of mayoralties in 2003 to over half by 2011 and 2015. Republican candidates tend to do best in midsized cities, and worst in the largest and smallest cities. • There is a gradual, steady decline in turnout in mayoral elections during the 2003–2015 study period. In that time, turnout in November general elections dropped from an average of 29 percent in 2003 to 22 percent. Primary turnout declined by 20 percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2015. • Average voter turnout is highest in Indiana’s smaller cities and declines as city size increases. Cities with 5,000 to 10,000 residents had turnout of 31 percent. In cities with populations above 50,000, average turnout was around 21 percent. • In Indiana, the relationship between median household income and turnout runs contrary to expectations. Typically, election turnout increases within a community that has a high average median income. In Indiana, regardless of household income, turnout is roughly 26 percent for each category, with little variation. • Indiana cities with the highest concentrations of college-educated adults have, on average, the lowest turnout (about 24 percent). On the other hand, voter turnout in cities with lower concentrations of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree is highest (28 percent). This is also contrary to typical election patterns. Mayoral Elections in Indiana, 2003–2015 1. 2. List of Tables and Figures Figure 5.1: Turnout in Mayoral Elections by Educational Attainment Figure 5.2: Turnout in Mayoral Elections by Median Household Income (2013 dollars) Figure 5.3: Turnout in Mayoral Elections by City Size Figure 5.4: Percentage of Unopposed Mayoral Elections by City Size Figure 5.5: Average Number of Mayoral Candidates by City Size Figure 5.6: Average Margin of Victory in Mayoral Elections by City Size Figure 5.7: Incumbents and Mayoral Elections by City Size Figure 5.8: Party of Winning Candidates by City Size Figure 5.9: Turnout in Mayoral General and Primary Elections, 2003–2015 Figure 5.10: Turnout in Mayoral General Elections by Year and City Size Figure 5.11: Percent Unopposed Mayoral Elections by Year and Election Type Figure 5.12: Percent Unopposed Primary Elections by Year and Party, 2003–2015 Figure 5.13: Party of Winning Mayoral Candidates, 2003–2015 2.
Load more

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 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.............
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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):
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana's Voter Identification Law in International Perspective
    \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP211.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-SEP-09 13:01 Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana’s Voter Identification Law in International Perspective Frederic Charles Schaffer* Tova Andrea Wang** Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, re- quiring people to present identification to vote has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues in election reform. HAVA necessitates, among other things, that members of a small group of people—new voters registering by mail—establish their identity in one of many ways.1 While about half of the states in the country today apply just that requirement, many states have used the HAVA identification provision to justify addi- tional, more stringent measures. At present, twenty-four states require all voters to present identification when casting a ballot in person. Most of these states accept a wide range of both photo and non-photo forms of identification. A handful of states allow only photo identification. Four of them—Louisiana, Hawaii, Michigan, and South Dakota—allow eli- gible voters to cast regular ballots on Election Day even if they fail to bring or do not have the photo identification required. Such voters simply sign affidavits and cast their votes. Only three states absolutely require photo identification: Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. Indiana’s law, passed in 2005, is the most restrictive. Unlike the Florida law, which allows voters to present several different types of photo identification, the Indiana and Georgia laws require that the photo identification be government-issued. But unlike Geor- gia, Indiana makes it difficult for voters to obtain that identification.2 For these reasons, opponents believe that the Indiana law will inflict the most widespread disenfranchisement.
    [Show full text]
  • Midterms Are Coming up – What Should You Know?
    Midterms are coming up – what should you know? This document was compiled from reputable online sources but is not meant to be a comprehensive listing. Any inaccuracies are solely the responsibility of the individual researcher and not of the LGBTQ Northwest Indiana Inc or PFLAG Crown Point Inc organizations. We hope it is helpful resource for you as 2018 midterms approach. DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO VOTE IS OCTOBER 9, 2018!!!!! LOGISTICS Visit Indiana government1 website to Visit Human Rights Campaign2 website to Register to vote Check registration status Check voting status Register to vote Find your polling place Get your absentee ballot Learn more about election security Get election reminders See Indiana primary election results (May 2018) Find your polling place by state, district or county Visit Ballotpedia3 website to see information on all upcoming elections in Indiana SUPPORT FOR LGBTQ EQUALITY Visit Human Rights Campaign4 website to see information on how our elected officials voted on LGBTQ rights issues Members of Congress were scored based on their votes and co-sponsorships of pieces of legislation that are key indicators of support for LGBTQ equality. Despite the 114th Congress failing to enact any legislation to protect the LGBTQ community, majorities emerged in both chambers on key LGBTQ issues. Key Facts: 190 Members of Congress earned perfect scores (188 Democrats, 2 Republicans). The average score for Representatives was 53. o Average score for Democratic Representatives is 96. o Average score for Republican Representatives is 10. The average score for Senators was 54. o Average score for Democratic Senators is 98. o Average score for Republican Senators is 20 We’re currently in the 115th Congress See current congressional district map5 114th Congress Congressional Scorecard6results follow o 100% is excellent, shows LGBT support; 0% is bad, shows lack of support o For details on what LGBTQ-related issues they supported or didn’t support, click the Congressional Scorecard link above o US Senate (114th Congress) .
    [Show full text]
  • GUEST COLUMN Surprising 2016 – a Snapshot in Time
    GUEST COLUMN Surprising 2016 – A Snapshot in Time There were 14 presidential elections from 1868 aside and a former office holder re-emerging as a through 1920. In 12 of those elections, the winner of the candidate for that opening, and at least five caucuses to presidential election won Indiana. Also in 12 of those fill major ballot vacancies. All of this before the heat of elections there was a candidate for president or vice president the fall campaigning activities. for a major political party from Indiana, including 1916 Each of these events is unusual, but not completely when both major party vice presidential candidates were unimaginable. What makes 2016 so unique is the confluence from Indiana. Four of the five vice presidents from Indiana of all of these events in one year. We have reached a were elected during that period. For many, this was the point where we may no longer be surprised by what high point for Indiana in national electoral politics. happens next and instead we ask what will happen next. In 2008, Indiana relived some of that influence and For young voters and voters who are new to the excitement with a hotly-contested Democratic primary state, two of three presidential elections have been exciting. Andrew Downs and a rare win in the state for the Democratic For the rest of us, we think we know better. More candidate. At that time, many voters thought they were often than not since 1972, presidential nominations experiencing something that would not happen again in have been decided before Indiana holds its primary in their lifetimes.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1365
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana's Voter Identification Law in International Perspective
    \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP211.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-SEP-09 13:01 Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana’s Voter Identification Law in International Perspective Frederic Charles Schaffer* Tova Andrea Wang** Since the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, re- quiring people to present identification to vote has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues in election reform. HAVA necessitates, among other things, that members of a small group of people—new voters registering by mail—establish their identity in one of many ways.1 While about half of the states in the country today apply just that requirement, many states have used the HAVA identification provision to justify addi- tional, more stringent measures. At present, twenty-four states require all voters to present identification when casting a ballot in person. Most of these states accept a wide range of both photo and non-photo forms of identification. A handful of states allow only photo identification. Four of them—Louisiana, Hawaii, Michigan, and South Dakota—allow eli- gible voters to cast regular ballots on Election Day even if they fail to bring or do not have the photo identification required. Such voters simply sign affidavits and cast their votes. Only three states absolutely require photo identification: Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. Indiana’s law, passed in 2005, is the most restrictive. Unlike the Florida law, which allows voters to present several different types of photo identification, the Indiana and Georgia laws require that the photo identification be government-issued. But unlike Geor- gia, Indiana makes it difficult for voters to obtain that identification.2 For these reasons, opponents believe that the Indiana law will inflict the most widespread disenfranchisement.
    [Show full text]