Tuesday, February 09, 2010
the state requested another extension.
i might put up a link to the brief tomorrow.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARION COUNTY, et al.
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Robbin Stewart moves the court for partial summary judgment as motions as follows:
The parties do not agree on every fact in the case. But I think that they agree on certain core facts which are sufficient to frame the issues for decision.
These include: that in 2005 the county and state adopted a policy of requiring ID as a precondition to voting (Crawford _ U.S at ); that that policy is still continuing (Rolita letter 2009 url); that plaintiff is a person who is unwilling to show ID as a precondition of voting (affidavit p 1.); that my provisional ballots have not been counted and I have cast no counted vote since 2005 (id.), although I wish to vote and have tried to do so (id.); that the announced results in 2006 (Crawford, slip op at p._ ) and the 2008 (Michael Pitts article) primary did not include provisional ballots where no ID was shown and did not include votes of people who were not allowed to vote for reason of voter ID. I am a registered voter and have previously voted at that precinct and in Marion County. (affidavit p1 see also deposition.) There has been no contention that I am not who I say I am, or that my signature does not match the signature in the poll book.
The continued denial of my vote in 2008 and 2009 elections are not before the court at this time, because the court has not allowed the complaint to be supplemented with the new facts that have arisen as a consequence of the court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief as this case proceeds. There is a live controversy, I have standing, and the issues are ripe for decision, and can be decided as a matter of law.
The contested legal issues in the case include whether plaintiff had a right to vote without ID, and a right to free elections including counting the votes of people without ID,
A) under the free and equal elections clauses of Article II section 1,
B) under the right to vote of article II section 2,
C) under the right of free speech of Article I section 9,
D) under the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of Article I section 11,
E) under the right to due course of law of Article I section 12
F) under the 24th Amendment to the US constitution,
G) under the First Amendment,
H) under the 4th Amendment,
I) under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment,
G) under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Claims under Article I section 31 (right to petition) are not addressed herein.
Claims under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment are not addressed in this motion, as they are better deferred until the Supreme Court rules in McDonald v Chicago. Claims under the 15th Amendment are not addressed herein.
The law is with the plaintiff and against the defendants in this case.
Accordingly, the court should rule that plaintiff's rights were violated by the defendants conduct at issue, and set a jury trial as to matter of damages, and permanently enjoin defendants from again denying plaintiff the right to vote for reason of ID.
The court should order that his provisional ballots be counted.
In support of this motion plaintiff relies, as is further set out in the brief in support, on the following documents.
The verified complaint.
Affidavit of plaintiff.
County's response to interrogatories.
County's reply brief in Crawford v Marion.
Exhibits 1-5, filed separately as hardcopy.
Additionally, plaintiffs rely on the legal arguments contained in their separately submitted Memorandum of Law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant me partial summary judgment in this cause and all other proper relief.