« Ind. Courts - "Problems were discovered when the courthouse exterior was probed by fiber-optic cameras earlier this year" | Main | Environment - How clean is clean in Illinois? And Indiana »

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Ind. Gov't. - Names on the ballot, and the "may" issue

The Lafayette Journal-Courier reported this weekend:

Lafayette Mayor Tony Roswarski filed a lawsuit Friday morning in an attempt to force the county to put unopposed municipal candidates onto the ballot.
The "may" issue: To quote again from Friday's FWJG story:
Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma of Indianapolis echoed Long’s statements.

“I am not a fan of the change,” he said. “We need a historical record of elections. It’ll be on my list of things to remedy next year.” * * *

The provision specifically says an election “may not be held for a municipal office if there is only one nominee for the office.”

Bosma said there has been some confusion over the phrase “may not,” noting some legislators thought that phrase left the decision up to local election officials.

“It’s poorly worded and could lead to a great deal of voter confusion,” he said.

But Rep. Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, author of the measure, sent a letter to her fellow legislators clarifying the phrase.

“Some are confused by the may not provision – I just ask you this – if your mother says you may not have a piece of candy what did that mean to you? Well to me it meant no candy.” * * *

Richardson holds a leadership position in the House and is respected as an elections expert in that chamber.

Rep. Richardson's letter is quoted in this Sept, 20th ILB entry, which was headlined "If your mother says you 'may not' have a piece of candy what did that mean to you?"."

Dan Carden of the NWI Times' story today includes:

The chairwoman of the Indiana Senate Elections Committee believes the uproar over a new law allowing election officials to drop uncontested races from the ballot is a lot of fuss over nothing.

State Sen. Sue Landske, R-Cedar Lake, co-sponsored House Enrolled Act 1242, which eliminates a requirement that even candidates without an opponent be listed on the ballot.

"It should reduce the size of the ballot," Landske said, which she believes will save money. Though the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency projects any savings from shorter optical-scan ballots will be "minimal."

Critics of the change say leaving candidates off the ballot is antidemocratic and likely to confuse voters who will wonder why they could only vote for certain offices.

That has led election officials in Lake County, and in counties across Indiana, to announce they plan to ignore the law and list every candidate in every race, even unopposed candidates.

Landske said that's fine with her since the text of the law says counties "may" omit uncontested races, it does not say they "shall" not include them.

"They can choose to handle that however they want to," Landske said. "There are no repercussions."

Merrillville officials had hoped the new law would enable the town to save several thousand dollars this November by only opening polling places in the three Merrillville council districts where more than one candidate is running.

It costs the town some $34,000 to open polling places town-wide, according to Councilwoman Carol Miano.

But the decision of the Lake County elections board to require uncontested races be listed on the ballot and polling places be open for citizens to select those unopposed candidates means Merrillville taxpayers won't see any of those potential savings.

ILB: Let's tally up those reported positions:

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 25, 2011 12:57 PM
Posted to Indiana Government