Sunday, November 19, 2006

 
Here is the text of the Court of Appeal's possibly erroneous dismisal of the interlocutory appeal November 6th. Typos mine.

ORDER

Appellant Joell Palmer by counsel has filed an Emergency Motion for
Stay, a Motion for Interlocutory Appeal and Expedited Review,
exhibits in support of those motions, and a Notice of Appeal.
The underlying facts are as follows. A general election will be
held tomorrow, on November 7, 2006. Indiana have promulgated statutes
requiring each voter to display photographic identification ("photo
ID") at his or her precinct as a condition of voting. Appellant has a
driver's license, but he does not want to display it at the polls out
of concern for his privacy. Shortly before the spring primary
election, Appellant went to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to see if he
could obtainb a free photo ID, but he was told tha the is not eligible
for a free voter ID because he already has a driver's license.
Appellant was denied the opportunity to vote during the spring primary
election because he refused to display a photo ID. Instead,, Appellant
was offered the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot. Appellant
executed a provisional ballot, but it was never counted. Appellant's
provisional ballot was not counted because Apellant refused to produce
his "voting license," and because Appellant refused to consent to a
search of his person at the City-County Building as a condition of
accessing the Marion County Election Board's office.
Appellant expects to be denied the opportunity to vote tomorrow if he
is not permitted to vote without showing a photo ID.
[page 2]
On Octoner 27, 2006, Appellant filed with the trial court a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, a
Supporting Memo, and a Complaint for Injunction, Damages, and
Declaratory Relief against Marion County, the State of Indiana,
Secretary of State Todd Rokita, the co-directors of the Indiana
Elections Division, the Clerk of the Marion County Courts, unnamed
employees of the Secretary of State's office, unnamed precinct
officials who Appellant alleges prevented him from voting in the
spring, Securatex (which manages the security screening process at the
City-County Building), and Jack Cottey (a Securatex employee who
supervises the security screening process at the City-County
Building). In addition to the voting rights claim discussed above,
Appellant also alleged that the Indiana Election Division wrongfully
refused to place his name on the ballot as a candidate for the Indiana
General Assembly and wrongfully refused to allow him to register as an
official write-in candidate.

On November 1, 2006, the trial court denied Appellant's request for a
temporary restraining order ("TRO") with respect to the requirement
of showing a photo ID at the polls. The trial court did not rule on
Appellant's request for relief with respect to the requirement of
showing a voter ID at the polls. The trial court did not rule on
Appellant's request for relief with respect to his candidacy for
office or his alleged denial of access to the City-County Building. On
November 2, 2006, Appellant filed with the trial court a motion to
certify its November 1, 2006 ruling. The trial court has yet to rule
upon Appellant's motion to certify.
Appellant has filed a notice of appeal as well as a Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal and Expedited Review. Appellant also filed with
the Clerk of this Court a Motion for Emergency Transfer, which the
Indiana Supreme Court denied on Friday, November 3.
Appellant asks the court to stay the trial court's denial of his
request for a temporary restraining order. Appellant also asks the
Court to accept interlocutory jurisdiction over this case and expedite
its review so that an opinion is issued by the evening of November
6th, 2006.
Having reviewed the matter, the court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Appellant's Emergency Motion for Stay is DENIED.
(2) Because the trial court has not yet certified its order of
November 1, 2006, for discretionary interlocutory review, Appellant's
Motion for Interlocutory Review and Expedited Review is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to Appellant's right to request discretionary
interlocutory review if the trial court chooses to certify its order
of November1, 2006 for discretionary interlocutory review.
(3) Because the trial court's November 1, 2006 order was neither a
final judgment nor an interlocutory order appealable as of right
pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 14(A), Appellant's Notice of Appeal is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Appellant's right to seek appellate
review after the entry of a final judgment or an interlocutory order
subject to appeal as of right.
(4) The clerk of the court is directed to send copies of this order
to the parties, and certified copies of this order to
The Honorable Cynthia J Ayres
Judge, marion Superioir Court, Civil Division
200 E Washington Street #T-1221
Indianapolis IN 46204

The Honorable Doris Anne Sadler
Clerk of the Marion Circuit and Superior Courts
200 E Washington Street, #W-122
Indianapolis IN 46204

(5) Clerk Sadler is DIRECTED to file a copy of this order under cause
number 49D04-0602-CT-044113 and cause the same to be spread of record.
ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2006.

Patrick D Sullivan, Acting Chief Judge
Baker, Vaidik, J.J., concur.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

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