Oath of ballot counter bill dies after House committee hearing
Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, authored Senate Bill 186, which would require the circuit court clerk to give a copy of each oath counter on provisional ballots to the election division no later than 30 days after the election.
Chairman of the House Elections and Apportionment committee Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, offered an amendment to the bill to remove the requirement for the circuit court clerk to transmit a copy of each oath taken by a ballot counter for the 2024 election.
The amendment was adopted unanimously during a March House Elections and Apportionment committee meeting. The bill was held during the March 26 committee meeting and was not heard in committee after that.
Dernulc said the bill died after officials determined it created 'duplicative work.'
'I was disappointed it didn't get a vote,' Dernulc said. 'All I wanted to do was to make it transparent. I wasn't able to convince (Wesco), so I'll do more work next year.'
In drafting the bill, Dernulc previously said he worked with Secretary of State Diego Morales and Brad King, co-director of the Indiana Election Division. Dernulc previously testified that he authored the bill after residents came to him to talk about more transparency in the election process.
'They would like to see a little more transparency, that's all,' Dernulc previously said. 'There's nothing that anybody's doing that's adversarial or bad, just a little more transparency into it.'
Indiana Election Division Democratic co-general counsel Matthew Kochevar testified in committee that he opposed the bill because people can file a FOIA request to see provisional ballot signatures at their local election office, which is easier than traveling to Indianapolis to see the signatures.
When the bill was heard in the House committee, Brad King, Republican co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said the bill was drafted because of a records request filed in the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration office.
The Lake County election office 'experienced, from the perspective of the Republican assistant director at that time, difficulty in responding to public records requests for oaths of the provisional ballot counters,' King said.
'The bill before you comes from the actual experience that the individual had in providing those records upon request,' King said. 'It's not unprecedented. It mirrors a provision in current law.'
Lake County Board of Elections and Registration Director Michelle Fajman sent a letter April 1 to legislators to inform them that she opposed the bill and that Lake County never received the FOIA in question.
Fajman wrote that she spoke with LeAnn Angerman, the former assistant director, who told her that she did not recall receiving a FOIA request for provisional ballots.
Further, Fajman said in the letter that her office staff checked FOIA records between November 2024 to February 2025, since the bill referenced the 2024 general election, and no provisional ballot FOIA requests were filed.
'A bill should never be introduced based on one complaint and never by one that has not been substantiated,' Fajman wrote.
If the argument for the bill was that a county had difficulty responding to a FOIA request, having staff copying the ballots and filing them with the state Election Division wouldn't make the process easier, Fajman wrote.
As a test run, Fajman wrote that she asked her staff to copy all the provisional ballots from the 2024 general election. It took her staff an hour and a half to do so, Fajman wrote.
Fajman said her office retains all election documents for 22 months, and it wouldn't be difficult to respond to a FOIA request to see the provisional ballots. The ballots are kept under lock and key in a room with video surveillance, Fajman wrote, and all provisional ballots are signed by full-time staff.
'Lake County does an excellent job in conducting elections. I am offended that Lake County's name is being tarnished by this bill,' Fajman wrote.
Fajman told the Post-Tribune Thursday she was glad the bill didn't make it out of the House committee.
'There is no broken part to this. It didn't need fixing,' Fajman said. 'It's a redundant process, and it's not needed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Texas Republicans plan another special session to deliver Trump more GOP congressional seats
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were prepared to end their stalemated special session and immediately begin another standoff with Democrats in the GOP's efforts to redraw congressional maps as directed by President Donald Trump. It's the latest indication that Trump's push to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections will become an extended standoff that promises to reach multiple statehouses controlled by both major parties. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows confirmed the plans during a brief session Tuesday morning that marked another failure to meet the required attendance standards to conduct official business because dozens of Democrats have left the state to stymie the GOP's partisan gerrymandering attempts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Burrows said from the House floor that lawmakers will not attempt to reconvene again until Friday. If Democrats are still absent — and they have given no indication that they plan to return — the speaker said Republicans will end the current session and Gov. Greg Abbott will immediately call another. The governor, a Trump ally, confirmed his intentions in a statement. 'The Special Session #2 agenda will have the exact same agenda, with the potential to add more items critical to Texans,' Abbott wrote. 'There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them. I will continue to call special session after special session until we get this Texas first agenda passed.' Abbott called the current session with an extensive agenda that included disaster relief for floods that killed more than 130 people. Democrats balked when Abbott added Trump's redistricting idea to the agenda. Burrows on Tuesday did not mention redistricting but chided Democrats for not showing up for debate on the flood response package. The redistricting legislation would reshape the state's congressional districts in a design aimed at sending five more Republicans to Washington. The scheme is part of Trump's push to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. Current maps nationally put Democrats within three seats of retaking the House majority — with only several dozen competitive districts across 435 total seats. Texas Republicans have issued civil warrants for the absent Democrats. Because they are out of state, those lawmakers are beyond the reach of Texas authorities. Burrows said Tuesday that absent Democrats would have to pay for all state government costs for law enforcement officials attempting to track them down. Burrows has said state troopers and others have run up 'six figures in overtime costs' trying to corral Democratic legislators. Barrow and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.
Vox
11 minutes ago
- Vox
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Elise Stefanik's Chances of Beating Kathy Hochul Surge in New York—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican, gained nearly 10 percentage points on New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul since last month's Siena University poll of registered statewide voters, which one pollster attributed to conservatives "coming home" to their candidate. Newsweek reached out to Hochul via email for comment. Why It Matters Hochul, New York's first female governor, who took over after Andrew Cuomo resigned in 2021 following sexual assault allegations, was elected in 2022 after defeating Republican Lee Zeldin in what was the state's narrowest gubernatorial result in nearly three decades. Although New Yorkers have heavily leaned Democratic in most local and statewide elections, Republicans have gained traction with the help of a strong base combined with more political sway from independent voters. Polls highlight room for Republicans like Stefanik, or perhaps other challengers like Republican Representative Mike Lawler, to contest Hochul's reelection efforts. What To Know Siena's newest poll of New York State registered voters, released Tuesday, shows that although Hochul's job approval and favorability ratings are actually up from June, her lead in a potential gubernatorial race against Stefanik fell to 14 points, 45-31 percent, down from a 23-point lead in June, 47-24 percent. Nearly half of voters say they are at least somewhat familiar with Stefanik; however, just 29 percent say she has the right experience to be governor. Also, by a margin of 49-37 percent, they say that if she were elected governor, it would be bad for New York. New York Representative Elise Stefanik at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. New York Representative Elise Stefanik at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 42-44 percent favorability rating improved from 42-47 percent in June. Her job approval rating has improved since June, now standing at 53-42 percent compared to 50-45 percent in June. Stefanik's favorability rating is 27-32 percent, with 41 percent saying they don't know or have never heard of her. The poll surveyed 813 registered voters between August 4-7. Siena pollster Steven Greenberg told Newsweek on Tuesday that really the largest difference is that "Republicans have come home for Stefanik." Independents have also slightly shifted, going from supporting Hochul by 7 percent in June to now favoring Stefanik by 3 points. "Is 14 points a danger sign?" Greenberg said. "Well, in New York, it's certainly a warning sign given the enrollment of the state, which is 49 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican—so, better than a two-to-one enrollment advantage for Democrats. "No Republican has won in New York State since 2002, when George Pataki won his third term, so it's been a long time. It's an uphill battle for any Republican going up against any Democrat in the state of New York. That said, Hochul only beat Zeldin three years ago by six points, so there is room for movement." Stefanik's numbers could certainly sway between now and next year as more people become aware of her and the policies she supports, he added. Greenberg noted how independent voters' support of Stefanik, 35-32 percent, essentially shows how 67 percent of that electorate can make or break candidates' chances during a lengthy campaign cycle. "It shows that about one-third of independents aren't willing to choose a candidate right now between Hochul and Stefanik," he said. "I think it shows opportunity and warning for both candidates." Mamdani Remains Strong Tuesday's poll also shows New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a Democrat, receiving support from 44 percent of registered voters compared to 25 percent who support independent Andrew Cuomo. Another 12 percent support Republican Curtis Sliwa, and 7 percent support independent incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. City voters under 35 are overwhelmingly supporting Mamdani, Greenberg said, as are a plurality of voters aged 35-54. Voters ages 55 and older back Cuomo over Mamdani, 38-32 percent. What People Are Saying Team Elise Executive Director Alex DeGrasse told Newsweek: "The latest Siena poll is catastrophic for Kathy Hochul as she is losing independent voters to Elise Stefanik, is below 50 percent on the ballot, and only 35 percent of voters want to re-elect Kathy Hochul as voters are increasingly looking to Elise Stefanik to deliver new leadership. "Chairwoman Elise Stefanik will continue to focus on providing results such as delivering the largest middle class tax cut in New York history. She will repeal Kathy Hochul's failed bail reform and dangerous sanctuary cities policies and cut taxes for New Yorkers." Governor Kathy Hochul on X on August 8: "Massive price hikes are coming for New York families because of Donald Trump's tariffs. Sellout Stefanik supports them. Why? She'd rather score political points with Trump than fight for you. I'm putting money back in New Yorkers' pockets." What Happens Next The 2026 New York gubernatorial election is scheduled to take place on November 3, 2026
