Wednesday, October 21, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROBBIN STEWART, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) 1:08-cv-586-LJM-TAB
)
)
MARION COUNTY, et al. )
Defendants, )
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
Intervenor. )
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff and for his motion to amend the complaint states as follows.
D1. I move to amend the complaint to add a new count under Article I section 23.
D2. In LWV v Rokita, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the voter ID Act violates Article I section 23, the equal privileges clause.
D3. New Count:
This count incorporates by reference the fact paragraphs as stated in the First Amended Complaint and in the pending Supplement to the Complaint.
D4. When I was prevented from voting in the 2006 and 2008 primary and general elections, and I am faced with not being allowed to vote in the 2009 special election and all future elections, my right to vote is treated unequally in violation of section 23.
D5. The election statutes create different classes of potential voters, which are treated differently. One class is those who are over 65, and are allowed to vote either in person or by absentee ballot.
D6. Because I am not 65, and am not handicapped and am not ordinarily out of state on election day, I am not eligible to vote absentee, and am subjected to voter ID, and prevented from voting, abridging my fundamental right to vote.
D7. For those who cast their ballots in person, the election statutes create two classes of potential voters, those who are willing to waive their fundamental right to be free from unwarranted causeless search or seizure, and those who are not. Those who waive their search rights are permitted to vote, those who do not are denied the vote. Both classes are denied a fundamental right, but the classes are not treated equally. I belong to the second class.
D8. I experience distress each time I am denied the right to vote. I experience distress each time I am subjected to search without cause, or kept from going somewhere I want to go because it would involve being subjected to an unwarranted search.
D9. Voting is especially important to me. I have worked in political campaigns since I was 10, have held appointed office in four states, have run for office four times, and go out of my way to vote. I have won election cases on two previous occasions. I wrote my Master of Laws thesis on voting rights under state constitutions. Elections are as important to me as basketball is to the average Indiana resident. When I am kept from voting, I am harmed.
Relief sought: I seek to have Indiana’s voter ID act and practices temporarily and permanently enjoined, to get declaratory relief that the act as practiced violates section 23, to be awarded damages as determined by a jury, to be able to have my votes cast and counted, to be awarded costs and fees, and for all other relief as is in the interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Robbin Stewart
ROBBIN STEWART, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) 1:08-cv-586-LJM-TAB
)
)
MARION COUNTY, et al. )
Defendants, )
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
Intervenor. )
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff and for his motion to amend the complaint states as follows.
D1. I move to amend the complaint to add a new count under Article I section 23.
D2. In LWV v Rokita, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the voter ID Act violates Article I section 23, the equal privileges clause.
D3. New Count:
This count incorporates by reference the fact paragraphs as stated in the First Amended Complaint and in the pending Supplement to the Complaint.
D4. When I was prevented from voting in the 2006 and 2008 primary and general elections, and I am faced with not being allowed to vote in the 2009 special election and all future elections, my right to vote is treated unequally in violation of section 23.
D5. The election statutes create different classes of potential voters, which are treated differently. One class is those who are over 65, and are allowed to vote either in person or by absentee ballot.
D6. Because I am not 65, and am not handicapped and am not ordinarily out of state on election day, I am not eligible to vote absentee, and am subjected to voter ID, and prevented from voting, abridging my fundamental right to vote.
D7. For those who cast their ballots in person, the election statutes create two classes of potential voters, those who are willing to waive their fundamental right to be free from unwarranted causeless search or seizure, and those who are not. Those who waive their search rights are permitted to vote, those who do not are denied the vote. Both classes are denied a fundamental right, but the classes are not treated equally. I belong to the second class.
D8. I experience distress each time I am denied the right to vote. I experience distress each time I am subjected to search without cause, or kept from going somewhere I want to go because it would involve being subjected to an unwarranted search.
D9. Voting is especially important to me. I have worked in political campaigns since I was 10, have held appointed office in four states, have run for office four times, and go out of my way to vote. I have won election cases on two previous occasions. I wrote my Master of Laws thesis on voting rights under state constitutions. Elections are as important to me as basketball is to the average Indiana resident. When I am kept from voting, I am harmed.
Relief sought: I seek to have Indiana’s voter ID act and practices temporarily and permanently enjoined, to get declaratory relief that the act as practiced violates section 23, to be awarded damages as determined by a jury, to be able to have my votes cast and counted, to be awarded costs and fees, and for all other relief as is in the interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Robbin Stewart
