Saturday, January 27, 2007
The court has granted defendants a one month extension in which to file an answer.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Amicus draft
In Crawford v Marion County, plaintiffs have moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc at the Seventh Circuit.
I am trying to draft an amicus in suport of rehearing.
I'd like to work with anyone else so inclined.
please contact me gtbear at gmail.
Click to keep reading.
http://joellpalmer.blogspot.com/2006/01/amicus-draft-in-crawford-v-marion.html
Interests of the Parties
Summary of Argument
Argument
Statement of the case
Summary of argument
The case is of great public importance, meriting close review of the panel’s decision.
The panel erred in applying lax review.
The panel erred in failing to address the state constitutional claim.
The panel erred in failing to certify the state claim to the Indiana Supreme Court, since there is no controlling authority in support of the district court’s rulings on the state claims.
The panel erred in its conclusion regarding the state claim, and consequently reached the wrong conclusion in the case.
In Crawford v Marion County, plaintiffs have moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc at the Seventh Circuit.
I am trying to draft an amicus in suport of rehearing.
I'd like to work with anyone else so inclined.
please contact me gtbear at gmail.
Click to keep reading.
http://joellpalmer.blogspot.com/2006/01/amicus-draft-in-crawford-v-marion.html
Interests of the Parties
Summary of Argument
Argument
Statement of the case
Summary of argument
The case is of great public importance, meriting close review of the panel’s decision.
The panel erred in applying lax review.
The panel erred in failing to address the state constitutional claim.
The panel erred in failing to certify the state claim to the Indiana Supreme Court, since there is no controlling authority in support of the district court’s rulings on the state claims.
The panel erred in its conclusion regarding the state claim, and consequently reached the wrong conclusion in the case.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Today, checked pobox, nothing new, emailed client, emailed State rep Wiliam Crawford about the case. This just in from the Indy star.
Plaintiffs seek rehearing on state's voter ID law
Plaintiffs challenging Indiana's voter identification law filed a motion Thursday seeking a rehearing, saying they think a federal appeals court erred when it upheld the law earlier this month.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the decision by a lower court to keep the law in place. The panel concluded in a 2-1 vote that the measure has not hindered voters.
But the plaintiffs, who include Democrats and civil liberties activists, want the entire 12-judge court to weigh in. They argue there is plenty of evidence showing the law has caused voting problems.
Passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2005, the law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID before they can vote.
I've just read the motion for rehearing en banc, and had to go back and read the appeal brief that Posner was responding to.
Plaintiffs did not preserve their poll tax, equal protection,and free and equal elections claims in the appeal. They relied on a losing voting rights act claim, a series of first amendment arguments, and one of the state constitutional claims, the article II section 2 claim.
So if I do a brief, I can't argue these things that were waived, but I can argue the ones that were preserved. This means my case is even more important then ever - it is the only place where these claims are preserved and can be argued.
I should prepare a memo for the Brennan Center on these points.
More thoughts on the
Plaintiffs seek rehearing on state's voter ID law
Plaintiffs challenging Indiana's voter identification law filed a motion Thursday seeking a rehearing, saying they think a federal appeals court erred when it upheld the law earlier this month.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the decision by a lower court to keep the law in place. The panel concluded in a 2-1 vote that the measure has not hindered voters.
But the plaintiffs, who include Democrats and civil liberties activists, want the entire 12-judge court to weigh in. They argue there is plenty of evidence showing the law has caused voting problems.
Passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2005, the law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID before they can vote.
I've just read the motion for rehearing en banc, and had to go back and read the appeal brief that Posner was responding to.
Plaintiffs did not preserve their poll tax, equal protection,and free and equal elections claims in the appeal. They relied on a losing voting rights act claim, a series of first amendment arguments, and one of the state constitutional claims, the article II section 2 claim.
So if I do a brief, I can't argue these things that were waived, but I can argue the ones that were preserved. This means my case is even more important then ever - it is the only place where these claims are preserved and can be argued.
I should prepare a memo for the Brennan Center on these points.
More thoughts on the
Saturday, January 13, 2007
The OCR came out a bit iffy, but there might be readable parts here:
OrDER
Plaintiffs motion, filed November 1,2006, for leave for interlocutory appeal of the denial of motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, is hereby
[~] Granted [ ] Denied
Distribution:
R. Stewart I. Stewart L. Karlson H. Dean
--------------
STATE OF INDIANA )
)SS:
COUNTY OF MARION )
)
JOELL PALMER, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
MARION COUNTY, STATE OF )
INDIANA, 1. BRADLEY KING, )
TODD ROKIT A, KRIST! )
ROBERTSON, DORIS ANN )
SADLER, JOHN DOE #1-4, JANE )
DOE #1-3, SECURATEX, JACK )
COTTEY, )
)
Defendants. )
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 49D04060 1 OCT 44113
@ l?I.l-JE:D
JAN 08 2007
FINDINGS OF FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. AND JUDGMENT
I. Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff, Joell Palmer, is a registered Indiana voter and the nominated candidate of the Libertarian Party for the lOOth District state representative race.
2. Defendant, Marion County, is a municipality in the State of Indiana.
3. Defendant, the State of Indiana, is a co-equal sovereign entity in the United
States federal system.
4. Defendant, Todd Rokita, is the secretary of state for the State of Indiana.
7. Defendants, John Doe #1-4, are employees of the secretary of state's office who communicated the State ofIndiana's voter licensing program to potential
voters.
8. Defendants, Jane Doe # 1- 3 are officials in Plaintiff s precinct.
9. Defendant, Securatex, is a company contracted by Marion County to conduct searches of people trying to enter the City-County building in Marion County. 10. Defendant, Jack Catley, is a supervising employee of Securatex responsible for the City-County building searches.
11. On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff fi,led a Complaint against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, aQ9.:~ought a Preliminar):')njunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent Defendants, Marion County and the State ofIndiana, from requiring any voter, including Plaintiff, in the November 2006 election to show government issued identification as a condition of voting, absent a search warrant.
12. Also on October 27,2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, along with a Memo in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction.
II. Condusions of Law
1. Trial Rule 65(A)(1) does not allow a preliminary injunctiqn to be issued without opportunity for a hearing upon notice to the adyerse party. None of the documents filed with the CO)lrt on October 27, 2006 indicated that notice of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction had been given to Defendants.
2. Trial Rule 65(B)(2) does not allow a Temporary Restraining Order to be•
notice to the adverse party absent certification in writing by applicant's attorney of the efforts made to give notice and the reasons
supporting a claim that notice should not be•required. Plaintiffs Complaint
did not make such certification, nor did it give reasons supporting that notice
should not be required.
III. Judgment
''f~liiil'titf'§M()tion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Temporary Injunction was denied .. z;;:i.", .
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this )? th
[I'll plan to post a cleaned up version of this in a few days. It gives the general idea.]
OrDER
Plaintiffs motion, filed November 1,2006, for leave for interlocutory appeal of the denial of motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, is hereby
[~] Granted [ ] Denied
Distribution:
R. Stewart I. Stewart L. Karlson H. Dean
--------------
STATE OF INDIANA )
)SS:
COUNTY OF MARION )
)
JOELL PALMER, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
MARION COUNTY, STATE OF )
INDIANA, 1. BRADLEY KING, )
TODD ROKIT A, KRIST! )
ROBERTSON, DORIS ANN )
SADLER, JOHN DOE #1-4, JANE )
DOE #1-3, SECURATEX, JACK )
COTTEY, )
)
Defendants. )
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 49D04060 1 OCT 44113
@ l?I.l-JE:D
JAN 08 2007
FINDINGS OF FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. AND JUDGMENT
I. Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff, Joell Palmer, is a registered Indiana voter and the nominated candidate of the Libertarian Party for the lOOth District state representative race.
2. Defendant, Marion County, is a municipality in the State of Indiana.
3. Defendant, the State of Indiana, is a co-equal sovereign entity in the United
States federal system.
4. Defendant, Todd Rokita, is the secretary of state for the State of Indiana.
7. Defendants, John Doe #1-4, are employees of the secretary of state's office who communicated the State ofIndiana's voter licensing program to potential
voters.
8. Defendants, Jane Doe # 1- 3 are officials in Plaintiff s precinct.
9. Defendant, Securatex, is a company contracted by Marion County to conduct searches of people trying to enter the City-County building in Marion County. 10. Defendant, Jack Catley, is a supervising employee of Securatex responsible for the City-County building searches.
11. On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff fi,led a Complaint against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, aQ9.:~ought a Preliminar):')njunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent Defendants, Marion County and the State ofIndiana, from requiring any voter, including Plaintiff, in the November 2006 election to show government issued identification as a condition of voting, absent a search warrant.
12. Also on October 27,2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, along with a Memo in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction.
II. Condusions of Law
1. Trial Rule 65(A)(1) does not allow a preliminary injunctiqn to be issued without opportunity for a hearing upon notice to the adyerse party. None of the documents filed with the CO)lrt on October 27, 2006 indicated that notice of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction had been given to Defendants.
2. Trial Rule 65(B)(2) does not allow a Temporary Restraining Order to be•
notice to the adverse party absent certification in writing by applicant's attorney of the efforts made to give notice and the reasons
supporting a claim that notice should not be•required. Plaintiffs Complaint
did not make such certification, nor did it give reasons supporting that notice
should not be required.
III. Judgment
''f~liiil'titf'§M()tion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Temporary Injunction was denied .. z;;:i.", .
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this )? th
[I'll plan to post a cleaned up version of this in a few days. It gives the general idea.]
Monday, January 08, 2007
While I was at the court filing the amended complaint, I learned that the Court, today, has granted leave to appeal and issued findings of fact and law as to why the TRO and injunction was denied. Apparently it's because I didn't file a rule 65 B 2 statement. I feel like they could have told me this at the time. I'll be getting the docs in the mail in a few days and hope to get them scanned or keyed in.
Anyway, I have leave to appeal now.. mulling it over.
(B) Temporary restraining order - Notice-Hearing -Duration. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if:
(1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition; and
(2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be indorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk's office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed ten [10] days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the whereabouts of the party against whom the order is granted is unknown and cannot be determined by reasonable diligence or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and takes precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the motion comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction and, if he does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. On two (2) days' notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move its dissolution or modification and in that event the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.
This part seems relevant:
(3) Assignment of cases - Judge to act promptly. Assignment of cases shall not be affected by the fact that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought, but such case shall be assigned promptly and the judge regularly assigned to the case shall act upon and hear all matters relating to temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The judge shall make himself readily available to consider temporary restraining orders, conduct hearings, fix the manner of giving notice and the time and place for hearings under this rule, and shall act and require the parties to act promptly. If the party seeking relief or his attorney by affidavit establishes that the judge assigned to the case is not available or cannot be found to consider an application for a restraining order, to conduct a hearing, or to fix the manner of giving notice and the time and place for a hearing under this rule, he may apply to any other judge in the circuit who shall take all further action with respect to any temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. If the affidavit establishes that no other judge in the circuit is available or to be found, he may apply to the judge of any adjoining circuit. Unless an order is entered within ten [10] days after the hearing upon the granting, modifying or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction, the relief sought shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 53.1.
and:
Rule 1. Scope of the rules
Except as otherwise provided, these rules govern the procedure and practice in all courts of the state of Indiana in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law, in equity, or of statutory origin. They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.
Anyway, I have leave to appeal now.. mulling it over.
(B) Temporary restraining order - Notice-Hearing -Duration. A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if:
(1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition; and
(2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be indorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk's office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed ten [10] days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the whereabouts of the party against whom the order is granted is unknown and cannot be determined by reasonable diligence or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and takes precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the motion comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction and, if he does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. On two (2) days' notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move its dissolution or modification and in that event the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.
This part seems relevant:
(3) Assignment of cases - Judge to act promptly. Assignment of cases shall not be affected by the fact that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought, but such case shall be assigned promptly and the judge regularly assigned to the case shall act upon and hear all matters relating to temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The judge shall make himself readily available to consider temporary restraining orders, conduct hearings, fix the manner of giving notice and the time and place for hearings under this rule, and shall act and require the parties to act promptly. If the party seeking relief or his attorney by affidavit establishes that the judge assigned to the case is not available or cannot be found to consider an application for a restraining order, to conduct a hearing, or to fix the manner of giving notice and the time and place for a hearing under this rule, he may apply to any other judge in the circuit who shall take all further action with respect to any temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. If the affidavit establishes that no other judge in the circuit is available or to be found, he may apply to the judge of any adjoining circuit. Unless an order is entered within ten [10] days after the hearing upon the granting, modifying or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction, the relief sought shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 53.1.
and:
Rule 1. Scope of the rules
Except as otherwise provided, these rules govern the procedure and practice in all courts of the state of Indiana in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law, in equity, or of statutory origin. They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
With a couple hours and all day tomorrow to go, I've finished a first amended complaint, as I was ordered by the court to do or face dismissal. It took some work,and made my vacation on maui more complicated - the island doesn't have a lot of free computers, but it's done except for the proofreading printing and filing.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARION COUNTY INDIANA
Joell Palmer,
Plaintiff,
v. Cause No. 49D04-06 10-CT-044113
Judge Cynthia Ayers
Marion County, State of
Indiana, J. Bradley King,
Todd Rokita, Kristi Robertson,
Doris Anne Sadler, Beth White, John Doe
#1-4,Jane Doe 1-3, Securatex,
Jack Cottey,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff Joell Palmer by counsel and for his first AMENDED complaint for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief states as follows.
1. Suit was filed October 27, 2006. Defense counsel moved, and the court ordered, for a more definitive statement. This first amended complaint is in response to that order. The first section restates the original complaint. A second section, paragraphs 242 et seq., updates events in light of the occurrence of the election.
2. Introduction: This is an action to stop a threat to the integrity of the election process.
3. Time is of the essence.
4. Defendants are attempting to engage in voter fraud, by preventing registered voters without a voting license from voting.
5. The result will be that the winners of the upcoming elections cannot be determined, because an unknown number of eligible voters will be prevented from voting.
6. The open door law claim, IC 5-14-1.5-7(g) and the rules of court including TR40(A), provide a statutory basis for expedited handling.
7. A motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction has been filed to prevent irreparable harm.
The rest of it will be posted in a moment at the following link.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARION COUNTY INDIANA
Joell Palmer,
Plaintiff,
v. Cause No. 49D04-06 10-CT-044113
Judge Cynthia Ayers
Marion County, State of
Indiana, J. Bradley King,
Todd Rokita, Kristi Robertson,
Doris Anne Sadler, Beth White, John Doe
#1-4,Jane Doe 1-3, Securatex,
Jack Cottey,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff Joell Palmer by counsel and for his first AMENDED complaint for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief states as follows.
1. Suit was filed October 27, 2006. Defense counsel moved, and the court ordered, for a more definitive statement. This first amended complaint is in response to that order. The first section restates the original complaint. A second section, paragraphs 242 et seq., updates events in light of the occurrence of the election.
2. Introduction: This is an action to stop a threat to the integrity of the election process.
3. Time is of the essence.
4. Defendants are attempting to engage in voter fraud, by preventing registered voters without a voting license from voting.
5. The result will be that the winners of the upcoming elections cannot be determined, because an unknown number of eligible voters will be prevented from voting.
6. The open door law claim, IC 5-14-1.5-7(g) and the rules of court including TR40(A), provide a statutory basis for expedited handling.
7. A motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction has been filed to prevent irreparable harm.
The rest of it will be posted in a moment at the following link.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Seventh Circuit, Posner, 2-1, has upheld the Indiana voter ID scheme.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=vah&view=att&th=10feeed9a7edd3bf
oops that link won't work.
Link to follow.
Dissent by Evans.
http://www.xanga.com/craigc 1/4/7 posting, has the text.
Posner, Circuit Judge.
A google search for this text string should work as well.
A number of candidates for public office, and voters, along with organizations such as the Democratic Party that are active in electoral politics, challenge a new Indiana voting law as an undue burden on the right to vote, a right that the Supreme Court has found latent in the Constitution. E.g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979), and cases cited in Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145, 169-70 (1st Cir.2005). The law requires, with certain exceptions, that persons wanting to vote in person in either a primary or a general election must present at the polling place a government-issued photo ID, unless the person either wants to vote by absentee ballot (and is eligible to do so) or lives in a nursing home.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=vah&view=att&th=10feeed9a7edd3bf
oops that link won't work.
Link to follow.
Dissent by Evans.
http://www.xanga.com/craigc 1/4/7 posting, has the text.
Posner, Circuit Judge.
A google search for this text string should work as well.
A number of candidates for public office, and voters, along with organizations such as the Democratic Party that are active in electoral politics, challenge a new Indiana voting law as an undue burden on the right to vote, a right that the Supreme Court has found latent in the Constitution. E.g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979), and cases cited in Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145, 169-70 (1st Cir.2005). The law requires, with certain exceptions, that persons wanting to vote in person in either a primary or a general election must present at the polling place a government-issued photo ID, unless the person either wants to vote by absentee ballot (and is eligible to do so) or lives in a nursing home.
