The Indianapolis Star story is here. Some quotes:
The court's majority ordered a new election, saying Pastrick's political machine engaged in widespread fraud at the ballot box. The ruling reversed an Indiana Court of Appeals decision to dismiss Pabey's appeal.The Gary Post-Tribune has a number of stories today. However, as the Tribune does not archive its stories, the links will only be good for today (8/7/04). The lead story reports:Pabey had simply asked the court to throw out 1,950 absentee ballots, which had given Pastrick his winning margin.
The Supreme Court didn't throw those ballots out, leaving Pastrick with a lead of 178 votes of the 10,177 votes cast in the primary. Instead, justices voted 3-2 in favor of redoing the entire mayoral election in this economically struggling, ethnically diverse city of 31,000 along the Lake Michigan shoreline.
The majority did not spell out who could run -- or vote -- in the new election or even when the contest should be held. The court did not specify whether a primary and general election are required.
That's up to Special Judge Steven King, who presided over a trial in August 2003 and threw out 155 absentee ballots declared invalid but let Pastrick's primary victory stand. Pabey appealed that decision to the state Court of Appeals. * * *
In the past, judges have ordered new votes in those precincts in which voting irregularities were documented -- if the challenger could show enough votes had been affected to influence the election's outcome.
This time, the Supreme Court ordered a citywide election even though Pastrick finished ahead after some ballots were thrown out -- declaring that the effects of illegal voting schemes are not always so easy to quantify.
According to the majority, the new legal standard for ordering a special election is whether there was an orchestrated attempt to conceal an election's legitimate winner -- and the actions "profoundly" undermined the election's integrity.
"The legislature could not reasonably have intended to immunize obviously corrupt elections where the resulting distortion of an election outcome could not be precisely traced and mathematically determined," Justice Brent Dickson wrote on behalf of himself, Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justice Robert Rucker.
Dickson and Shepard are Republican appointees. Rucker is a Democratic appointee from Gary, which borders East Chicago.
Together they ordered a new election over the objections of Justices Theodore Boehm and Frank Sullivan Jr., both Democratic appointees.
In their dissent, Boehm wrote, and Sullivan agreed, that: "The presence of corruption, even if 'widespread,' is no basis to upset an election and nullify the votes of the electorate if a majority of the untainted votes supported the winning candidate."
Boehm and Sullivan said the new standard is so subjective it could invite unwarranted judicial interference in elections.
"There is no doubt that the plaintiffs proved old-style election fraud in some cases, and highly inappropriate behavior in others," Boehm concluded. "But our disapproval of the conduct of some of the participants in the election is no basis to change its result without proof the result was altered by the wrongdoing."
Given the court's split, Pastrick's attorneys say the mayor might ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling or at least flesh out details of how the special election should be conducted.
The high-court ruling, written by Justice Brent E. Dickson, followed closely the landmark decision by Special Judge Steven E. King a year ago. King found ample evidence of vote buying and manipulation of absentee ballots, but in the end, the judge felt he did not have the power to order a new election because Pabey forces had not shown enough fraudulent ballots to change the outcome."E.C. mayoral decision has all sides looking for answers," is the headline of this story, which reports:In his ruling, Dickson wrote that the decision rests not with a “mathematical comparison” but rest on the “trial court’s unchallenged findings and conclusions of pervasive and widespread deliberate conduct,” which in King’s words “perverted the absentee voting process and compromised the integrity and results of that election.”
Attorneys for Pastrick have 10 days to appeal for a rehearing before the Supreme Court; after that the decision goes back to King, who is required to order and oversee a new election. State statute sets the time frame for a new election at nine Tuesdays after a judge’s ruling.
Posted by Marcia Oddi at August 7, 2004 10:14 AM
The Supreme Court’s call for a special election in East Chicago has left state and local officials scrambling to figure out how that election will take shape.Attorneys for Mayor Robert Pastrick have 10 days to file a petition for a rehearing before the high court. After that, the court will send the case back to Special Judge Steven King with orders to hold a new election in East Chicago.
When they appear before King, attorneys for George Pabey will argue for basic ground rules. Nathaniel Ruff, Pabey’s attorney, said those would include limiting the election to the people in the 2003 mayoral primary — Pabey, Pastrick and former City Judge Lonnie Randolph.
Left without further direction, officials said King will have a great deal of leeway to set the parameters of the election. * * *
The Lake County Elections and Registration Board has scheduled a special meeting for this Wednesday to try to determine the latest date it can conduct an East Chicago primary and still be ready for a Nov. 2 general election in the city, Wieser said.
“Will that give them time to go out, get the ballots printed and do the absentee ballots in time for the November general election?” Simmons asked.
East Chicago taxpayers will foot the bill for the special elections, to the tune of roughly $69,362.33 for the primary and then the general election. * * *
King will also need to spell out whether the Republicans get another primary as well. * * *
There also is the issue of whether there also would be a general election. In heavily Democratic East Chicago, Pastrick easily rolled over little-known Republican Arthur Santos in the 2003 General Election, Ruff said.
And what if, as political insiders often speculate, Pastrick, a nine-term incumbent, stepped down, rather than face another election?