Voter intent, uniform treatment of all voters at issue
For Immediate Release
October 8, 2007
Write-in candidates prepare for Election Board decision
Voter intent, uniform treatment of all voters at issue
All three registered write-in candidates issued a joint statement signaling their intention to attend the next meeting of the St. Joseph County Election Board scheduled for this Wednesday October 10. The write-in candidates requested clarification as to what standard of “voter intent” would be used to judge write-in votes cast in the upcoming November 6 municipal elections.
During the board’s September meeting the Democratic co-chairperson, James Korpal, told Karl Hardy, a Green Party write-in candidate for South Bend Common Council At-Large, to expect a decision against interpreting writing in “Green” or “Green Party” as sufficient indication of a voter’s intent to vote for the three Green Party write-in candidates.
Besides Hardy, both Dave Vollrath (Mishawaka Common Council At-Large) and Tom Brown (Mayor of South Bend) are Green Party write-in candidates. The Indiana Green Party does not have what is commonly known as “ballot access” that would automatically have Green candidates’ names placed on ballots.
“We recognize the Election Board is likely to act on the advice of Indiana state Election Division officials and turn down our request,” said Hardy. “I’m holding some hope, however, that the board will consider our statements and exercise their ability to interpret voter intent according to the spirit of Indiana statute.”
Hardy and the other two candidates pointed to Indiana Code 3.12.1.1 that includes the following:
“…the primary factor to be considered in determining a voter’s choice on a ballot is the intent of the voter. If the voter’s intent can be determined on the ballot or on part of the ballot, the vote shall be counted for the affected candidate or candidates or on the public question. However, if it is impossible to determine a voter’s choice of candidates on a part of a ballot or vote on a public question, then the voter’s vote concerning those candidates or public questions may not be counted.”
“The fact is that straight ticket ballots accounted for a whopping 47% of votes cast in St. Joseph County during the last municipal election in 2003,” said Hardy. “Why should my opponents have votes counted for them based solely on a voter’s selection of straight ticket “Republican” or “Democrat” without having to specify an individual or office? If straight ticket voting is sufficient for “voter intent,” why will an individual who writes in “Green” or “Green Party,” for the specific offices in which Greens are running as write-ins, have his or her vote thrown out?”
At stake, the Greens argued, is a citizen’s fundamental right to cast a vote and have it counted, a right that has been routinely affirmed by the US Supreme Court. (*1) The Greens also asserted the US Supreme Court regularly considers (*2) whether or not states permit write-in votes when evaluating the burden imposed by election laws governing ballot access for minor party candidates.
“When there only a relatively few number of competitive races both locally and around the state, the barriers to entry into the election process become that much more glaring,” said Vollrath. “Independents and third parties in Indiana often have to resort to write-in campaigns. It is very important the Indiana election law be clear and provide for an equal standard for all votes- write-in or not- for all candidates, in all races.”
The candidates stressed their desire to work with the county election board but said they were not overly optimistic given the board’s treatment of nearly 500 write-in votes cast for three registered write-in candidates in the last general election held in St. Joseph County (2006). Election board members refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and suggested the Greens “see an attorney” when pressed for an explanation as to why 181 votes apparently cast for the Green Party candidate for Secretary of State, Bill Stant, were not counted.
“We’re hoping to find a resolution to this particular matter but we’re in this for the long haul,” said Brown. “These issues are bigger than our candidacies, bigger than the Green Party, and bigger than South Bend or St. Joseph County.”
:::::
Contact:
Karl Hardy
South Bend
http://www.votegreenmichiana.wordpress.com
votegreenmichiana@gmail.com
:::::
*1. See Bush v. Gore – 2000 (“Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.); Gray v. Sanders -1964 (“all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to cast their ballots and have them counted.”); South v. Peters –1950 (“The right to vote includes the right to have the ballot counted.”)
*2. See Jenness v. Fortson- 1971 (upholding Georgia law in part because the law permitted write-in votes); Williams v. Rhodes-1968 (striking down Ohio law in part because the law banned write-in votes); Burdick v. Takushi- 1992 (upholding ban on write-in votes because Hawaii provides candidates “easy access to the ballot.”)
