"Rules are rules." Funny how that doesn't seem to apply to the Orange Con Man and his buddies, who are getting richer every day while 99 percent of us have to fight to afford groceries, gas and health insurance. People are getting fed up and come November a change is coming, except probably in Indiana where people consistently vote against their best interests because there's an "R" next to the name.
These were IN-PERSON votes. These weenies should have to articulate any plausible potential avenue for fraud in this exact circumstance, not whine about how many pieces of flair the ballots have.
Isn't that paper tape supposed to function as a backup for a damaged ballot? This feels more like damage by the poll workers, whom no one thinks acted with the intention to disenfranchise their neighbors.
Her Fraudulence may take the seat but she will not have won it.
(that epithet was of course a reference to Rutherford B. Hayes, and the dirty dealings that concluded the election of 1876, not an accusation of anything)
It's interesting that Hiatt says she would have counted them and then says that they were disqualified because of the rules. Is she stating that she would only follow the rules sometimes?
--
“Personally, I would have,” Hiatt said. “It was two mail ballots that our ladies, the only thing they forgot was the seal. It was human error, just an oversight. My ladies didn’t miss that in the intent of fraud. Or the voter. But I’m not the Recount Commission. And rules are rules – they’re there for a reason.
---
And to the point about Deery’s attorney, Samantha DeWester, calling this unprecedented, I found a few cases that are similar:
- Karen C. Horseman v. J. Scott Keller (2006)
- Tamara Sullivan v. Noell Krughoff, Shelby Co. Dem. Central Committee Chairperson (2008)
- Jim Mansfield and State ex rel. Mansfield v. Sharon McShurley and Delaware Co., Indiana Election Board (2009)
And the language is plain in the Sullivan case:
"When these sections are carefully examined, there is no conflict. An absentee ballot, which is what is at issue in this case, may not be counted unless it has been properly endorsed."
If we think the rules need to change, we need to change them.
---
So when someone says it's not raining outside, be sure to check for yourself. ;-)
The Recount Commission this week split its votes, 2-1, when an absentee ballot was missing either a clerk's signature or the clerk's seal, as was the case in Warren County ballots. When the two required poll worker/election official initials were missing -- the third of the three reliability indicators -- they voted 3-0, agreeing that the law said those shall be rejected. The Democratic member of the Recount Commission interpreted state law on the clerk's signature and seal as giving them discretion, that they may reject the ballot. Seeing no proof of fraud, he sided with what he saw as the voter's intent vs. an official error in those 2-1 votes. I'm reading here that you were on the majority side of those decisions and official procedures outweigh voter intent.
Thanks, Dave. I haven't declared any side. I see the validity in both. Voter intent is important. Official procedures and Indiana Code are important, too. They work in tandem. And if Clerks and their staff cannot follow procedures, they should be held to account accordingly, too.
I haven't had a chance to review the entire hearing yet, but reading through the case law it is clear that there is precedent to not count absentee ballots that fail to meet the endorsement requirements, however, these cases dealt with IC 3-12-1-13 which talks about requiring the two signatures from the absentee voter board and county election board.
However, if the Recount Commission was relying solely on IC 3-11-4-19, my plain reading of it says that the signature and seal are required if the ballot if mailed:
"Sec. 19. (a) Subject to IC 3-5-4-9, a ballot that is mailed must bear the circuit court clerk's official seal and signature or facsimile signature on the back of the ballot."
So, I stand corrected if DeWester meant that there is a lack of precedent regarding IC 3-11-4-19 and not a lack of precedent on counting absentee votes missing signatures in general. I can see a bit of rain outside now. ;-)
I am curious about the discussion and why the Democratic member of the Recount Commission considered state law to provide discretion, when IC 3-5-4-9 clearly says "must bear the circuit court clerk's official seal and signature".
And if we don't like the laws, we can change them.
Homework for me is to find these parts in the hearing and then look through more case law. Ha!
Fascinating. I listened to the Warren County rejection of two ballots, exhibit 56 and 57, because they lacked the Clerk's signature and seal. There was no discussion on the part of the Recount Commission. A motion was made to reject, it was seconded, and, as you reported, only Claytor voted against.
Bock and DeWester said they are the same arguments they provided before for the Montgomery County ballot that was missing just the signature of the Clerk, so I will review that one and update this comment.
I agree with Claytor stating that Indiana Code is clear when a ballot must absolutely be thrown out and in the case of a missing Clerk's signature or seal, that is up to the Recount Commission.
---
What is curious to me is how do any ballots not have a signature or seal applied to them? What causes those instances?
I don't like the outcome of removing votes without a stronger case being made for why the signature and seal was not applied to all ballots. But I understand why the Recount Commission went this way.
This is an area that the Indiana General Assembly should take and clean up the code.
"Rules are rules." Funny how that doesn't seem to apply to the Orange Con Man and his buddies, who are getting richer every day while 99 percent of us have to fight to afford groceries, gas and health insurance. People are getting fed up and come November a change is coming, except probably in Indiana where people consistently vote against their best interests because there's an "R" next to the name.
Senator Banks’ response sounds like a kid whose hand was caught in the cookie jar. This election was stolen.
These were IN-PERSON votes. These weenies should have to articulate any plausible potential avenue for fraud in this exact circumstance, not whine about how many pieces of flair the ballots have.
Isn't that paper tape supposed to function as a backup for a damaged ballot? This feels more like damage by the poll workers, whom no one thinks acted with the intention to disenfranchise their neighbors.
Her Fraudulence may take the seat but she will not have won it.
(that epithet was of course a reference to Rutherford B. Hayes, and the dirty dealings that concluded the election of 1876, not an accusation of anything)
Thanks, Dave.
It's interesting that Hiatt says she would have counted them and then says that they were disqualified because of the rules. Is she stating that she would only follow the rules sometimes?
--
“Personally, I would have,” Hiatt said. “It was two mail ballots that our ladies, the only thing they forgot was the seal. It was human error, just an oversight. My ladies didn’t miss that in the intent of fraud. Or the voter. But I’m not the Recount Commission. And rules are rules – they’re there for a reason.
---
And to the point about Deery’s attorney, Samantha DeWester, calling this unprecedented, I found a few cases that are similar:
- Karen C. Horseman v. J. Scott Keller (2006)
- Tamara Sullivan v. Noell Krughoff, Shelby Co. Dem. Central Committee Chairperson (2008)
- Jim Mansfield and State ex rel. Mansfield v. Sharon McShurley and Delaware Co., Indiana Election Board (2009)
And the language is plain in the Sullivan case:
"When these sections are carefully examined, there is no conflict. An absentee ballot, which is what is at issue in this case, may not be counted unless it has been properly endorsed."
If we think the rules need to change, we need to change them.
---
So when someone says it's not raining outside, be sure to check for yourself. ;-)
The Recount Commission this week split its votes, 2-1, when an absentee ballot was missing either a clerk's signature or the clerk's seal, as was the case in Warren County ballots. When the two required poll worker/election official initials were missing -- the third of the three reliability indicators -- they voted 3-0, agreeing that the law said those shall be rejected. The Democratic member of the Recount Commission interpreted state law on the clerk's signature and seal as giving them discretion, that they may reject the ballot. Seeing no proof of fraud, he sided with what he saw as the voter's intent vs. an official error in those 2-1 votes. I'm reading here that you were on the majority side of those decisions and official procedures outweigh voter intent.
Thanks, Dave. I haven't declared any side. I see the validity in both. Voter intent is important. Official procedures and Indiana Code are important, too. They work in tandem. And if Clerks and their staff cannot follow procedures, they should be held to account accordingly, too.
I haven't had a chance to review the entire hearing yet, but reading through the case law it is clear that there is precedent to not count absentee ballots that fail to meet the endorsement requirements, however, these cases dealt with IC 3-12-1-13 which talks about requiring the two signatures from the absentee voter board and county election board.
However, if the Recount Commission was relying solely on IC 3-11-4-19, my plain reading of it says that the signature and seal are required if the ballot if mailed:
"Sec. 19. (a) Subject to IC 3-5-4-9, a ballot that is mailed must bear the circuit court clerk's official seal and signature or facsimile signature on the back of the ballot."
So, I stand corrected if DeWester meant that there is a lack of precedent regarding IC 3-11-4-19 and not a lack of precedent on counting absentee votes missing signatures in general. I can see a bit of rain outside now. ;-)
I am curious about the discussion and why the Democratic member of the Recount Commission considered state law to provide discretion, when IC 3-5-4-9 clearly says "must bear the circuit court clerk's official seal and signature".
And if we don't like the laws, we can change them.
Homework for me is to find these parts in the hearing and then look through more case law. Ha!
Good luck navigating all four hours.
Hahahaha! Agreed. Thankfully there are timestamped transcripts. I'll take notes and share back.
Thank you as always, Dave.
Fascinating. I listened to the Warren County rejection of two ballots, exhibit 56 and 57, because they lacked the Clerk's signature and seal. There was no discussion on the part of the Recount Commission. A motion was made to reject, it was seconded, and, as you reported, only Claytor voted against.
Bock and DeWester said they are the same arguments they provided before for the Montgomery County ballot that was missing just the signature of the Clerk, so I will review that one and update this comment.
https://www.youtube.com/live/LSPcEj6rIgY?si=avRD3A67IHKRJFkU&t=5757
----
And here's where Claytor discusses his view on the Indiana Code and the discretion afforded to the Recount Commission:
https://www.youtube.com/live/LSPcEj6rIgY?si=lOyhj1XQJUe3K1Oj&t=3672
I agree with Claytor stating that Indiana Code is clear when a ballot must absolutely be thrown out and in the case of a missing Clerk's signature or seal, that is up to the Recount Commission.
---
What is curious to me is how do any ballots not have a signature or seal applied to them? What causes those instances?
I don't like the outcome of removing votes without a stronger case being made for why the signature and seal was not applied to all ballots. But I understand why the Recount Commission went this way.
This is an area that the Indiana General Assembly should take and clean up the code.