Tuesday, December 13, 2011

 
“ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin’s Unconstitutional Voter ID Law”
Posted on December 13, 2011 9:11 am by Rick Hasen
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
See this press release. See this related blog post/video.

this suit is important because it cleanly raises the 24th a issue.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

 
the county, which is representing both defendants, has removed the case to federal court, and has requested a month's delay in filing an answer. i wrote today to a couple of local lawyers seeking representation. based on how the last couple rounds went, i believe that getting a lawyer is an essential prerequisite to winning or settling the case.

Monday, December 06, 2010

 
Here is the text of my recently filed voter ID lawsuit.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARION COUNTY

Robbin Stewart,

Plaintiff

vs. Case number: ____________________

Marion County Board of Elections and

Linda Proffitt

COMPLAINT
Count I

1.This is an action concerning the denial of my right to vote at the 2008 general election. The
facts in Paragraphs 1-10 are re-alleged as to each count.
2.I am a registered voter in Marion County, in precinct 10-4.

3.I went to vote in person.
4.Linda Proffitt, 812 N Rural St,Indianapolis, IN 46201-2474, was in charge of the voting at the precinct. Her title might be inspector or judge.
5.I was asked to show a state ID.
6.I declined to do so, and stated that I had right to vote under the state constitution.
7.Proffitt refused to allow me to vote.
8.I asked her to give me something in writing, showing that I has been there and tried to vote, and was refused, but she would not do so. We spoke for about 5 minutes.
9.An observer from the Obama campaign provided me with an affidavit, which I filled out and returned to him. I believe it was forwarded to the Marion County Democratic Party offices.
10.Profitt's duty, under the statutes, was to either provide me with a regular ballot, or with a provisional ballot. She did not do so.
11.There are related cases. In Crawford v Marion County, consolidated with Rokita v Democratic Party, the US Supreme Court denied a facial challenge to the voter ID statute. I was an amicus in that case.
12. In League of Women Voters v Rokita, the Indiana Supreme Court, overruling the Court of Appeals, denied a facial challenge to the statute, while leaving room for future as-applied challenges. The Court denied my motion to consolidate LVW with Stewart v Marion County.
13.In Stewart v Marion County, I sued concerning the denial of my vote, for reason of voter ID, in the 2006 and 2007 elections,and the the 2008 primary. The case was removed to federal court. Judge McKinney denied a motion to amend or supplement the complaint to add the 2008 general election facts. Therefor there has no opportunity to fully litigate the facts of this new suit, and this suit is not barred by preclusion. Judge McKinney later dismissed the federal claims in the prior suit.
14.Refusing to let me cast a ballot violated my right to vote under the First and 14th Amendments.
Count II
15.The denial of my vote violated my right to procedural due process under the 14th Amendment, as I should have been given at least a provisional ballot.
Count III
16.The denial of my vote violated my right to due course of law under Article I section 12.
Count IV
17.The denial of my vote violated my right to free and equal elections under article II section 1.
Count V
18.Proffitt's denial of my vote was negligence. She had voluntarily assumed a duty of reasonable care, under which every voter's vote should have been cast and counted. Her refusal to let me vote at least a provisional ballot was a breach of this duty of care.
19.As her employer, Marion County is liable for her negligence.
Count VI
20.Marion County showed deliberate indifference to my clearly established constitutional right to vote, by failing to adequately train and supervise Profitt.
Relief sought:
As to each count, I seek damages as determined by a jury,
court costs and reasonable legal fees,
appointment of counsel,
a permanent injunction against Marion County and its precinct officials from denying me the opportunity to cast a ballot for reason of voter ID in future elections,
and such other relief as is in the interests of justice.
Robbin Stewart
Box 29164 Indianapolis IN 46229-0164
317.375.0931
gtbear@gmail.com

Thursday, June 24, 2010

 
I missed the deadline for filing my appeal with the 7th circuit.
So the federal part of this lawsuit is finished.
I have not yet filed anything new with the state court.
This does not mean that I have given up on the federal issues - I will be continuing to file lawsuits about Indiana's voter ID until I either get a resolution I like or get turned down by the Supreme Court. Each election cycle gives me standing again.
I will be checking with the state court to see where things stand, and then maybe filing a motion for a temporary injunction.
I might or might not resubmit my amicus brief to the Indiana Supreme Court in the LWV case, since they have not yet ruled. My brief was turned down by the clerk because I didnt specify whether certain parties were served in person or by mail. How the Indiana court rules in LWV will be the major factor in my state suit.
My next suit, which I have to file before november, will be about how I was denied the vote in the 2008 general election. I was not even given a provisional ballot, so they didn't follow their own rules, even if voter ID is upheld generally. This does not mean that I am certain to get damages - the state had some theories that even if my rights were violated no damages are due. But it's the kind of thing I'm willing to litigate.

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

 
voted provisional today. i won my gop primary, unopposed with 831 votes or so, but my dem opponent got 1100, so i have no chance in the fall.

Monday, May 03, 2010

 
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/stewart.pdf

Judge McKinney granted summary judgment to defendants, and remanded the state claims back to state court.
While this is a (wholly expected) setback, it actually puts the case in a good procedural posture. It splits the case in two, so that there is a second bite at the apple. Also, to sustain summary judgment, the seventh circuit (and supreme court) will have to assume the facts as plead, so our discussion will be about the law.
I expect that when I go to vote tomorrow I will again be refused.
What I need to do next:
file a pro forma motion for reconsideration.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

 
My reply to the defendants' motion for summary judgment is here
http://joellpalmer.blogspot.com/2005/03/in-united-states-district-court.html

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?