« Ind. Courts - "Small claims court a big deal to Kouts High students" | Main | Ind. Law - Where does the Indiana Constitution say that? »
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Ind. Law - Election outcome in Grant County Council race turns on a provisional ballot
A provisional ballot, cast by an indigent voter who did not have the requisite voter ID, turned out to be the deciding vote for the District 2 spot on the Grant County Council, in the election held Nov. 7, 2006. The disqualified ballot was reinstated by a judge yesterday. Barry Williams Wall of the Marion Chronicle-Tribune reports today:
More than five months after the Nov. 7 general election, a seat on the Grant County Council is changing hands following a prolonged legal battle.Friday, Dan Brock won an appeal of his recount in the race and was sworn into office. Grant Superior Court 3 Judge Natalie Conn allowed one extra vote to be counted, breaking a deadlock and putting the Democratic challenger ahead of the Republican incumbent, Myron Brankle. * * *
In November, Brock was one vote behind Brankle. After a recount requested by Brock was completed in December, the voted ended up tied. The Grant County Council, made up of all Republicans, then voted 5-0 in favor of Brankle to break the tie.
Brock appealed the recount, arguing the recount commission should have accepted two ballots it did not.
One of the ballots was an absentee vote, and the other was a provisional vote. According to court records, Conn ruled against the absentee ballot, which had a discrepancy with the signatures on it, and in favor of the provisional ballot, which ended up being cast for Brock.
That brought the final vote tally to 2,155 for Brock and 2,154 for Brankle. * * *
During the hearing, Brankle's attorney, James Beaman, argued that neither of the ballots should be counted. Along with arguing about the signatures on the absentee ballot, he argued that the provisional ballot should not be counted because proper provisional ballot protocol was not followed. That law requires the person casting the ballot to follow up with the clerk's office within 10 days.
"In essence, we feel this case boils down to a question of fact to be determined by a fact-finder, not questions of law to be determined by a court," Beaman said.
However, William Groth, Brock's attorney, contended that the procedural error was no fault of the voter.
The voter, he said, was indigent and did not have the required identification. The voter law allows an exception for the poor but requires the voter come to the clerk's office to sign an affidavit before the vote can be counted.
Those affidavits were accidentally sent to the polls on Election Day with poll workers, and the voter signed it on the spot, Groth said.
"Essentially the court agreed with our argument that any mistake involved here was made by the clerk's office rather than by the voter and that the voter should not be penalized by not having his vote counted because of a mistake made by the clerk's office," Groth said. "The voter here had done everything that could have been expected of him."
Despite the mistake made by the clerk's office, Brankle said he would not be appealing Conn's ruling.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 14, 2007 02:06 PM
Posted to Indiana Law