Paula Copenhaver’s team targets precincts where voters they claim illegally crossed over in the state Senate race live. Recount results in state Sen. Spencer Deery’s 3-vote victory could take weeks.
'State law, though, stipulates that that they are supposed to pick a ballot that matches a majority of that party’s candidates in the last general election or intend to back that party’s candidates in the upcoming election.' I don't understand how that stipulation is supposed to work, unless Indiana is saying that peoples' votes aren't secret, so poll workers would know how they voted or intend to vote?! How can they be challenged about which ballot they choose, if this isn't a closed primary where they have to sign up as a Democrat or Republican ahead of time?
It sounds like the voter themselves is supposed to pull the right ballot on primary day and the poll worker would challenge the voter, giving them a provisional ballot, if the poll worker believed they were being dishonest about their ballot choice.
But I don’t know how the poll worker could guess that, unless the voter walks up saying “I hate Republicans, but given a Republican ballot anyway”.
In the United States we vote via a secret ballot in a variety of ways according to local districts in order to shield others from observing one's vote.
By being called to testify under oath to state how one voted is an absurd stretch turning the concept of a secret ballot on its head.
Agree about the groundwork, including the chilling precedent of threatening to subpoena mouthy voters. I do not see good intentions on her side. However, I think she has the right to ask for a recount, given the minuscule margin, and that reasonable costs associated with ONE recount should be borne by the public.
'State law, though, stipulates that that they are supposed to pick a ballot that matches a majority of that party’s candidates in the last general election or intend to back that party’s candidates in the upcoming election.' I don't understand how that stipulation is supposed to work, unless Indiana is saying that peoples' votes aren't secret, so poll workers would know how they voted or intend to vote?! How can they be challenged about which ballot they choose, if this isn't a closed primary where they have to sign up as a Democrat or Republican ahead of time?
Very good point.
It sounds like the voter themselves is supposed to pull the right ballot on primary day and the poll worker would challenge the voter, giving them a provisional ballot, if the poll worker believed they were being dishonest about their ballot choice.
But I don’t know how the poll worker could guess that, unless the voter walks up saying “I hate Republicans, but given a Republican ballot anyway”.
In the United States we vote via a secret ballot in a variety of ways according to local districts in order to shield others from observing one's vote.
By being called to testify under oath to state how one voted is an absurd stretch turning the concept of a secret ballot on its head.
Besides wasting taxpayer money, Copenhaver is laying the groundwork for closed primaries in Indiana.
Agree about the groundwork, including the chilling precedent of threatening to subpoena mouthy voters. I do not see good intentions on her side. However, I think she has the right to ask for a recount, given the minuscule margin, and that reasonable costs associated with ONE recount should be borne by the public.
They’re always accusing others of anything unethical that. they’re doing.
https://apple.news/AdNcaBGRdStC9aX4duRG6Iw