IN.gov - Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.

Indiana Election Division

Election Division > Election Commission > Archived IEC Minutes > 1998 Archived IEC Minutes > January 13, 1998 Meeting Minutes Meeting Minutes

INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION

MINUTES
January 13, 1998


MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Cruea, Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission [IEC]; S. Anthony Long, Vice-Chairman; Butch Morgan; Joseph M. Perkins, Jr.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

STAFF ATTENDING: Laurie P. Christie, Co-Director, Election Division, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State ("Election Division"), Mary Ann Tippett, Co-Director, Election Division; J. Bradley King, Co-General Counsel, IEC and Election Division; Kristi Robertson, Co-General Counsel, IEC and Election Division; Annette Craycraft, Campaign Finance Co-Director; Michelle Thompson, Campaign Finance Co-Director; Lori Hershberger, Precincts and NVRA Coordinator; Bruce Northern, NVRA and Precincts Coordinator.

ALSO ATTENDING: Mr. Todd Rokita, General Counsel and Election Division Chief, Office of the Secretary of State; Ms. Maureen Bard, Legislative Services Agency; Mr. Jeff Brantley, Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Mr. B.A. Burgwold, of Michigan City; Mr. Richard J. Comer, Lake County Combined Board; Mr. Michael Davis, Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Ed Conaster, Delaware County Commissioner; Mr. Michael Davis, Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Mr. John Feick, Delaware County Attorney; Ms. Elsie Franklin, Vice-Chairman, Lake County Democratic Party; Ms. Kathy Heiser, Lake County Combined Election Board; Ms. Mary Kuzma, Delaware County; Ms. Sally Lasuto, Lake County Combined Election Board; Dr. Ed Mueller, of LaPorte; Mr. David Schilling, Monroe County Attorney; Mr. Stephen R. Stiglich, of East Chicago; Mr. James L. Wieser, Lake County Combined Election Board; Ms. Judy Wilson, LaPorte County Board of Voter Registration.

1. CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING REMARKS BY THE CHAIR:

The chair called the January 13, 1998 meeting of the Indiana Election Commission to order at 1:35 p.m. in Conference Center Room #10, Indiana Government Center South, 302 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, stating that proper notice of the meeting had been given as required by state law. The chair noted that a quorum of the Commission (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) was present.

The chair remarked that the room was extremely crowded, and suggested that the Commission recess for a short time and reconvene in Training Center Room #6. Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the Commission recess its meeting for fifteen

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

minutes, and reconvene in Training Center Room #6. The chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted. The Commission then recessed at 1:36 p.m.

The Commission reconvened at 1:57 p.m., with the same members in attendance. The chair noted that there was a quorum of members, and continued with the meeting.



2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 23, 1997 MINUTES:

The chair noted that the minutes of the December 23, 1997 Commission meeting were still being prepared, and that review and action concerning these minutes would take place at a future Commission meeting.

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRECINCT BOUNDARIES:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who administered the oath to all individuals who wished to testify before the Commission at this meeting. The chair stated that comments from each individual would be limited to three minutes, which would not include any time taken in responding to questions asked by Commission members.

The chair then recognized Ms. Hershberger and Mr. Northern. Mr. Northern stated that he and Ms. Hershberger would be available to provide information concerning the proposed precinct boundary changes in each county.

A. ORDER 1998-01 (PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN ALLEN COUNTY, BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY, CLAY COUNTY, GIBSON COUNTY, GRANT COUNTY, HANCOCK COUNTY, JOHNSON COUNTY, PORTER COUNTY, PUTNAM COUNTY, TIPTON COUNTY, VIGO COUNTY, WABASH COUNTY, WAYNE COUNTY, WHITE COUNTY, AND WHITLEY COUNTY):

i.ALLEN COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Allen County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Hershberger stated that the Allen County precincts presented today had been included in the Allen County precinct changes presented earlier to the Commission, but that staff could not recommend approval at that time since the proposed precinct line did not follow a census block line or a visible feature. She added that the boundary of the proposed precinct line had since been revised to follow a visible feature, and that she would recommend its approval by the Commission.



Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

ii.BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Bartholomew County precinct changes. There was no response.

iii.CLAY COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Clay County precinct changes. There was no response.

iv.GIBSON COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Gibson County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Hershberger indicated that the political party chairs in Gibson County had been advised of the proposed precinct changes.

v.GRANT COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Grant County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern indicated that only one precinct boundary was changing in Grant County, and that this change was due to annexations.

vi.HANCOCK COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Hancock County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern indicated that he had received a letter from the Hancock County Clerk this morning, stating that the political party chairs in Hancock County had been advised of the proposed precinct changes and had no objections.

vii.JOHNSON COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Johnson County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Northern stated that no objections or issues had been raised regarding the proposed Johnson County changes.

viii.PORTER COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Porter County precinct changes. There was no response. The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who stated that yesterday afternoon, she had received a facsimile transmission concerning these proposed changes, and distributed these documents to Commission members. The chair recognized Mr. Morgan, who stated that he preferred to have something in writing from the Republican County chairman in Porter County indicating that he was aware of the proposed changes. Ms. Hershberger stated that she had worked with Mr. Aylesworth, the county chair, in preparing the staff recommendation regarding these precincts.



Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

ix.PUTNAM COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Putnam County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Hershberger stated that no objections had been received concerning these changes.

x.TIPTON COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Tipton County precinct changes. There was no response.

xi.VIGO COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Vigo County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that both county political party chairs had been advised of these changes, and had no objection.

xii.WABASH COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Wabash County precinct changes. There was no response.

xiii. WAYNE COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Wayne County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that both county political party chairs had been advised of these changes, and had no objection.

xiv.WHITE COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the White County precinct changes. There was no response. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that both county political party chairs had been advised of these changes.

xv.WHITLEY COUNTY: The chair asked if anyone present wished to testify concerning the Whitley County precinct changes. There was no response.

In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Hershberger and Mr. Northern stated that the proposed precinct boundary changes in the counties listed above complied with state law. The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that, with the consent of the Commission, the documents distributed to Commission members concerning the proposed precinct changes would be made part of the record of this proceeding and incorporated by reference into these minutes. The Commission consented. [All documents incorporated by reference in these minutes are available for public inspection and copying in the office of the Election Division.]

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Mr. Cruea moved that Order 1998-01 be approved as submitted. Mr. Long seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.



B. ORDER 1998-03 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN LAKE COUNTY):

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that, with the consent of the Commission, the documents distributed to Commission members concerning the proposed Lake County precinct changes would be made part of the record of this proceeding and incorporated by reference into these minutes. He also distributed a copy of a letter concerning these precinct changes, dated January 12, 1998 addressed to Ms. Christie and Ms. Tippett. These documents are included in Volume 3 of these minutes. The Commission consented.

The chair recognized Mr. James L. Wieser, the attorney representing the Lake County Combined Election Board, who stated that he was accompanied by Mr. Stiglich, the County Democratic Party chairman; Mr. Comer, a member of the Combined Board; Ms. Franklin, the County Democratic Party vice-chairman; Ms. Lasota, the executive director of the Board; and Ms. Heiser, the assistant executive director of the Board. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Wieser stated that both major political parties were represented before the Commission today.

Mr. Wieser testified that there were often rumors, of an unknown source, that matters from Lake County could be politically contentious. He stated that to dispel this impression, the Board had submitted documentation indicating that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party county chairs had signed off on the proposed precinct changes, and that the work to prepare these precinct changes had been performed in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Wieser stated that the Combined Board, which is a bipartisan body of five members, had voted unanimously in favor of these precinct changes. He added that the proposed changes fairly and adequately represent the makeup of the voting public in Lake County, and that the proposed changes are both good and long overdue.

Mr. Wieser stated that he had appeared in court on Friday with Mr. DeBonis, who had filed a motion for an injunction against the Combined Board, but that the court had dismissed this motion. He indicated that Mr. Northern had advised him this morning that there were some scrivener's errors with regard to the legal descriptions of the proposed changes, and that there may need to be a minor adjustment to correct these matters. He stated that overall, the Combined Board believed that for the first time in many years, Lake County had fairly addressed the need to restructure its precincts.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Mr. Wieser stated that it was important to make these precinct changes now since an election was coming up for precinct committeeman, and that candidates should know which precinct they would be residing in and not have to worry about a precinct redistricting occurring after the May primary. He indicated that this would add a measure of fairness to the process. Mr. Wieser requested that the Commission approve the proposed order as submitted, with any technical modifications suggested by the Election Division staff.

In response to a question from Mr. Perkins concerning letters dated December 22 and December 23, 1997, concerning the impact of the proposed changes on black voters and Hispanic voters, Mr. Wieser stated that these issues had been considered by the Board in making the proposed changes. He stated that Mr. Comer, a current member of the Board and the former Democratic chairman and former deputy mayor of Gary and Ms. Franklin, the current county vice-chairman, had been involved in addressing this issue.

Mr. Wieser said that although in a couple of cases precincts had been combined in the northern area of Lake County, the position of the minority precinct committeemen in Lake County had not been diluted at all since there would still be an Hispanic committeeman for this area. He noted that there had been a long standing objection from the northern part of the county to a countywide redrawing of precinct lines to address population shifts to the southern part of the county. Mr. Wieser added that the cities in the northern part of the county (East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Whiting) include approximately 50% of the county's population, and that the proposed precinct changes would result in 51-52% of the county's precincts being located within these cities. He added that the proposed precincts had established an equality that had not been present before, and that the rights of the minority precinct committeemen had been protected in this process.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern noted that the list of census blocks included in the legal descriptions of the precincts did not include eight of these blocks, and that a technical correction of the list would be required. He indicated that these corrections would not affect the boundary lines of the proposed precincts, and that making these corrections would not alter the staff recommendation concerning these changes. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Northern said he would plan to work with the Lake County Board immediately following the Commission's meeting to make certain that these corrections were made.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Wieser stated that Lake County currently has 530 precincts, and that the proposed precinct changes would result in a total of 519 precincts within the county. Mr. Wieser stated that although some new precincts had been added, and more than eleven precincts had been combined, the a total reduction of eleven county precincts would occur under this proposal. He added that he understood the complaint regarding the proposal to be that the net number of precincts in East Chicago had been reduced. Mr. Wieser noted that although nine precincts in Gary would be eliminated under this proposal, five of these precincts currently had no committeeman and have not for a long period of time. He indicated that representatives were present from Gary to support this plan. Mr. Wieser stated that in Hammond, six precincts had been eliminated, but that Ms. Frances DuPey, the city chairman of Hammond, who also serves as county commission president, supported the proposed plan. He added that Whiting lost two precincts, and East Chicago lost twelve precincts under the plan. Mr. Wieser stated that East Chicago had 44 precincts, with fifteen more precincts and approximately 750 to 1,000 more voters than in the town of Merrillville, a growing community in the southeastern part of the county with 29 precincts. Mr. Wieser stated that the Board had attempted to keep approximately 600 voters within each proposed precinct. He indicated that under this proposal, both Merrillville and East Chicago would have 32 precincts. Mr. Wieser stated that this equality recognized the likelihood that Merrillville would continue to grow at a greater rate than East Chicago.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Wieser stated that the population growth in the southern part of Lake County was reflected in the town of Schererville, where he lived. He indicated that in 1978, the town had 7,000 people, and currently it had 27,000 residents. Mr. Wieser remarked that similar growth had occurred in Crown Point and in Merrillville, as well as in the unincorporated areas.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Northern stated that it would take about ten minutes to make the technical corrections identified to the list of census blocks. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Northern stated that staff had received the list of alleged discrepancies from Mr. DeBonis last night, and had the opportunity to look through the maps to identify most of the problems. Mr. Long stated that if the Commission voted to approve the order today, it should do so with the contingency that the scrivener's errors were to be corrected by staff, and the corrected order returned to the Combined Board for further action.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King noted that, pursuant to state statute, the local approving body in Lake County would be the Combined Board rather than the county commissioners.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Mr. Perkins moved that Order 1998-03 be approved, subject to the correction of the scrivener's errors identified by the Election Division staff as soon as possible following this meeting and approval of the corrected order by the Lake County Combined Board. Mr. Cruea seconded the motion.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King indicated that the Combined Board was not subject to the Commission's January 20 deadline for approval of proposed precinct changes. The chair recognized Mr. Long, who suggested that the motion be amended to indicate that the signed order would be held by Election Division staff until confirmation of the Combined Board's approval of the corrected order. Mr. Perkins consented to this amendment to his motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

C. ORDER 1998-02 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN DELAWARE COUNTY):

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson, who distributed a facsimile transmission, received by the Election Division shortly before this meeting began, for inclusion into the record, along with the material provided earlier to Commission members with their packet for this meeting. By consent of the Commission, these documents are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

The chair recognized Mr. Conaster, who said he would be available to answer any questions concerning the proposed changes. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Conaster stated that he had only recently seen the letter from former State Representative Hurley Goodall concerning the proposed changes. Mr. Long noted that the letter alleged that certain meetings concerning the proposed precinct changes had been conducted privately between the County Commissioners and Election Division staff members. Mr. Conaster responded that Mr. Northern had come up to Muncie for a meeting with himself as an individual Commissioner and with County Attorney John Feick. He indicated that there were press representatives at this meeting, but no other county commissioners were present. Mr. Conaster stated that the meeting was a preliminary gathering to get all the information compiled regarding the proposed precinct changes, and not a violation of the Open Door Law. He indicated that once the information concerning the precincts was compiled and organized, then as the only commissioner present he moved to the commissioners courtroom to make this information available to all the interested parties. Mr. Conaster stated that he then asked for comments or objections from those in attendance.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan concerning who had received an opportunity for input regarding these changes before

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

changes were taken to the county commissioners, Mr. Conaster said that everyone had an opportunity for input. The chair noted that a letter received in this matter from the county commissioners had indicated that both the Democratic and Republican county chairs had sent representatives (Kathy Stonecipher and Gene Lassiter) to participate in the development of the precinct changes. Mr. Conaster responded that after the initial meeting, he was advised that the county chairs should be personally contacted, and that he then contacted the county chairs that afternoon. He indicated that the letter was to document that representatives of the county chairs were advised of the proposed changes.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that no particular objection had been filed by either county chairman to the proposed precinct change plan. Mr. Conaster stated that he had contacted the Democratic Party chairman yesterday morning, and that the chairman did not convey any observations or objections concerning the precinct changes to him. He added that both party chairs were aware of the proposed changes, and that he had not heard anything objection from either chairman since that meeting.

Mr. Conaster said that questions concerning voter registration counts and population in the proposed precincts in the annexed areas had been addressed at this meeting. Mr. Northern added that each proposed precinct change was addressed at a public meeting where Ms. Stonecipher was present, and that no further changes were made until the public session when everyone was present to review and make the changes. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that he had no concerns regarding the compliance of the proposed precinct changes with state statutory standards. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Northern stated that he was aware that former State Representative Hurley Goodall and other individuals were waiting outside the room where the initial meeting was conducted, and that he had recommended moving the gathering to the public hearing room where those individuals could participate. He added that Mr. Goodall had been present when each of these changes were reviewed.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Conaster stated that he had provided information concerning these precinct changes to Mr. Goodall at this meeting, and that Mr. Goodall had not expressed any objections to the annexed areas being added to these precincts. He stated that he had scheduled this meeting for 10 a.m., and that these individuals had arrived at an earlier time outside his office. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Conaster remarked that the commissioners had not had a public meeting regarding these proposed precinct changes since the proposed changes only involved five small areas with a total population of less than 500 voters. He noted that one area had been annexed in February 1995, and the remaining areas had been annexed in November 1995, but the county auditor had not received the annexation ordinances until March 4, 1996. Mr. Conaster added that the

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

commissioners had not been advised until September 1997 that outlying areas containing voters had been annexed into the City of Muncie. He stated that the commissioners had acted expeditiously and responsibly to address this problem as soon as it was brought to their attention.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that the letter from former State Representative Goodall concerning these changes had not been received by the Election Division. He remarked that the photocopy of the letter provided to the Commission indicated that the letter was probably still being processed in interoffice mail since the letter was mailed to an incorrect street address and to the former room where the Election Division was located. Mr. King stated that this letter would have been copied and included in the Commission members' packet if it had been received on time.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that he was troubled by a procedural point concerning these precinct changes. In response to Mr. Conaster's statement that the county commissioners understood that the commissioners could not adopt a proposed precinct order until after the Election Commission approved the proposed changes, Mr. Long remarked that if the county commissioners were not required to act concerning a proposed order before submitting the order to the Election Division, then any individual or group could provide a precinct proposal to the staff for Commission consideration, with the commissioners unaware that the Commission had acted to approve the proposed changes.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the Commission had discussed the precinct approval process in detail at a previous meeting. He noted that the state statutes consist of a two-step process, with some action required by the appropriate county authority at both stages of the process. Mr. King remarked that Indiana Code 3-11-1.5-14 requires the commissioners as county executive to submit a proposed precinct establishment order to the co-directors of the Election Division before the county establishes a precinct under the state law. He noted that when the proposed order comes before the Election Commission, the Commission may approve the proposed order based on compliance with statutory standards, and the county commissioners then may adopt a final order to establish the precincts. He indicated that the statute does contemplate official action by the county commissioners at both stages.

In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conaster indicated that a final order had been prepared, but that the commissioners had not taken official action pending the Election Commission's approval. He added that the letter from Mr. Goodall expressed his opposition to a "redistricting plan", and that this proposal was not a redistricting plan, but merely a revision of voting precincts.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that Order 1998-02 be approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that there was a typographical error on the first page of this order which referenced "Lake County" rather than Delaware County. Commission members amended the order by consent to correct the typographical error.

Mr. Perkins stated that he wished to be clear in his mind regarding the procedural requirements governing the county commissioners in this case. The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the statute clearly requires the county commissioners to submit a proposed precinct order, and that under the state Open Door Law, the county commissioners as a body must act to approve the submission of the proposed order to the Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King stated that Indiana Code 3-11-1.5-14 requires approval by the county commissioners of a proposed precinct establishment order at a public meeting before submission to the Election Commission. Mr. Conaster stated that he did not read the statute in this way, and that if he had understood this to be a requirement, the commissioners would have passed the proposed order at its public meeting yesterday.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who moved, based on this information concerning the county's failure to comply with statutory requirements, that the proposed precinct changes set forth in Order 1998-02 be disapproved. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion.

The chair recognized Mr. Conaster, who stated that the county commissioners had a meeting scheduled tomorrow morning to approve this precinct order. He asked whether the Election Commissioners would be willing to amend their motion to permit the county to comply with this procedural requirement, since the county would otherwise not be able to meet the statutory deadline for completing its precinct changes, and would result in significant costs to the county due to the printing of additional ballot variations as a result. Mr. Conaster remarked that had the county commissioners received these ordinances promptly after their enactment, the changes would have been addressed earlier and not near the deadline for action. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Conaster stated that he and one other individual had been serving as county commissioners for a year, and that the remaining individual had served as a county commissioner for seven years.

Mr. Long stated that the concern addressed by his motion was that the county commissioners had not complied with the state statutes requiring a public hearing be conducted to submit the proposal to the Election Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, the chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Indiana Code 1-1-4-1(2) is a general statute which applies to all state agencies and to local governments, and that this statute provides that where a state law refers to a body taking official action, the

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

statute refers to a majority of the body. He noted that there was no specific requirement in Title 3 of the Indiana Code concerning this point, but that IC 1-1-4 applies to all state and local agencies. Mr. King stated that in this case, "official action" would be required by a majority of the members of the body, not by an individual who serves as one member of the body. He added that the Open Door Law also requires that for any public entity to take official action, the public entity must do so at a public meeting, presumably with a quorum of the public entity's members in attendance following proper public notice. Mr. King said that under IC 3-11-1.5-14, the county executive, meaning the county commissioners as a body, must submit any proposed precinct boundary order to the Election Division. In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, Mr. King stated that this statute does not state that an individual member of the commissioners may submit a proposed precinct order, but instead says the body itself must submit the proposed order. Mr. Conaster stated that the Commission had received a proposed order from the commissioners, but that signatures had not been affixed to this document pending action by the Commission. Mr. King responded that the statute envisioned a proposal being submitted only by a governing body, and that the only manner for the governing body to do so would be at a public meeting with a quorum of its members present.

Mr. Conaster asked Mr. Northern if he understood this to be the case. Mr. Northern responded that he did not before this morning, and that Delaware County was the first county in which he had worked with the commissioners directly regarding proposed precinct changes. Mr. Conaster asked if Mr. Northern was the Commission's official agent in assisting counties with proposed precinct changes to be properly prepared for submission before this body. Upon direction by the chair, Mr. King responded that Mr. Northern was clearly acting as an employee of the Election Division in this matter.

Mr. Conaster responded that the county had done precisely what Mr. Northern advised them to do. Mr. King stated that the clear past practice in administering this statute had been to require a two step county approval process, and that the use of this approach had been testified to earlier in this meeting by representatives of Lake County. The chair recognized Mr. Long, who remarked that he did not believe that Mr. Northern had visited Muncie to provide technical legal advice regarding the precinct approval process, but to assist with the review of proposed precinct maps and related documents. Mr. Conaster stated that he had also contacted Ms. Hershberger early this morning when Mr. Northern was unavailable to ask if there any problems with this precinct submission. He remarked that Delaware County should be able to rely on the Election Division to know what should be going on in this situation. Mr. Long stated that he understood both Mr. Northern and Ms. Hershberger's role to be that of providing technical advice with regard to precinct boundaries, and not legal advice with

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

regard to the state statutes governing the approval process. In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, the chair stated that he understood that all of the counties whose precinct orders had been approved by the Commission today had been previously approved by the county commissioners.

Mr. Conaster stated that since the Delaware County commissioners would be meeting tomorrow and could take official action to approve the proposed order, he hoped there would be a way to resolve this issue. He said that the commissioners had not done so previously since they understood that they could not take official action until after approval of the proposed precincts. The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the commissioners were only prohibited from taking final action regarding the proposed precinct change orders until approval had been given by the Election Commission. He added that if the Delaware County Commissioners conduct a public meeting regarding the proposed precinct order in accordance with the Open Door Law, and gives preliminary approval to the proposed precinct changes, the precinct changes can then be submitted to the Commission. Mr. King stated that if the Commission then schedules a meeting to be conducted between tomorrow and January 21, 1998, and the Commission votes to approve the proposed changes, the county commissioners can then take final action with regard to the proposed order. He remarked that it is legally possible to complete the precinct change process, assuming that the time frame is a workable one.

In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, Mr. King stated that the appropriate motion for Mr. Conaster to make at the next meeting of the county commissioners would be to submit the proposed precinct changes to the Election Division for approval under IC 3-11-1.5-14. He added that the document presented by Mr. Conaster would be the document used for county approval following action by the Election Commission. The chair recognized Mr. Northern, who stated that in many other counties, the commissioners had adopted an order under IC 3-11-1.5-36 to delegate the responsibility of submitting proposed precinct election orders to another county office, such as the county board of registration or county election board. Mr. Conaster stated that as a full-time county commissioner he took his responsibilities very seriously, and that all the information presented was discussed at an open meeting that complied with the Open Door Law. He added that if the commissioners had known yesterday that it was mandatory for them to take preliminary action to submit this order, he would have so moved yesterday if he had been advised to do so.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated on behalf of Ms. Robertson and himself that neither of them (nor the co-directors) had received an inquiry prior to this meeting concerning the effectiveness of the procedures used in this case, and that no individuals responsible for providing legal advice or information have conveyed any advice different than that presented to the Commission today.

In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, Mr. King stated that Indiana Code 3-11-1.5-14 did not require the county commissioners to pass an ordinance contingent upon approval by the Election Commission, but that the statute required the county commissioners to agree to submit a proposed order to the Election Commission for technical approval. The chair noted that the Commission members could be polled to determine if it would be possible to conduct another meeting before the January 21 deadline for approval. Mr. Conaster requested that the Commission vote to approve the proposed order today, contingent upon the county commissioners acting to approve the proposal at a public meeting scheduled for the following morning. He noted that Lake County's proposed changes had been approved contingent upon the correction of technical defects in the order.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that the difference was that in Lake County's case, the combined election board had acted based on the authority transferred to them from the county commissioners under a special state law, and that although there were some scrivener's errors in their proposed order that were to be corrected when the board took final action, in Delaware County the board of county commissioners had not taken any official action at all.

The chair stated that he would vote against the motion to disapprove the proposed precincts, but that he could support a motion to table this matter to give the Delaware county commissioners an opportunity to take further action under the statute. Mr. Long and Mr. Morgan then withdrew their motion to disapprove the precincts. Mr. Cruea and Mr. Perkins withdrew their motion to approve Order 1998-02. Mr. Long then moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to table Order 1998-02, as amended, until the next meeting of the Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Conaster, Mr. King indicated that the co-directors, Ms. Christie and Ms. Tippett, should receive the official submission of proposed precincts from Delaware County. Mr. Long requested that the Delaware County submission include a copy of the legal notice of the meeting to document that the Open Door Law had been complied with in this case.

There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

The chair requested that the Delaware County commissioners provide any additional information regarding the proposed precinct orders to the Election Division staff as soon as possible.

D. PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN MONROE COUNTY:

The chair recognized Mr. David Schilling, Monroe County Attorney, to testify regarding the proposed precinct boundary changes in Monroe County. Mr. King administered the oath to Mr. Schilling.

Mr. Schilling stated that he was present information concerning these proposed changes. In response to a question from Mr. Long, the chair stated that due to the lateness in receiving the documents concerning the proposed changes, a draft order for Monroe County had not yet been prepared.

The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who stated that Mr. Schilling had been very kind in delivering the documentation concerning the proposed changes to the Election Division this morning. She indicated that the proposed precinct changes were largely the result of annexations, and in some cases also reflected a voter population that exceeded the state statutory limit. Ms. Hershberger stated that she was not aware of any controversy involving the proposed changes.

Mr. Schilling stated that of the total 31 precincts changed, 23 changes were purely the result of annexations, five were due to both annexations and voter population, and three were due solely to an increase in the number of voters.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Schilling stated that to his knowledge, the county commissioners had not yet approved the proposed precinct changes. He added that the Monroe County Circuit Court Clerk was under the impression that the Commission would be meeting on January 20, and that the Monroe County Commissioners were scheduled to hear this matter on January 16, at which time the county commissioners would recess their meeting until after the Commission granted its approval on January 20. Mr. Schilling stated that he agreed that the statute required a two-step approval process, and that if the Election Commission scheduled a meeting before the deadline, the county would be prepared to formally submit the proposed changes for Commission action.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to table this matter until the next meeting of the Commission. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

E. ORDER 1998-04 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN LAPORTE COUNTY):

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that in addition to the documents distributed at the Commission's last meeting concerning the proposed precinct changes in LaPorte County, the Election Division had received a two page document today, which was a copy of a letter to Mr. Clindaniel from Ms. Wilson dated April 4, 1997 and a copy of a letter from Mr. Clindaniel to Ms. Hershberger, dated December 24, 1997. Copies of these letters were distributed to Commission members, and by consent of the Commission were incorporated by reference in these minutes. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. King stated that he had received these documents from Ms. Hershberger, and would have to defer to her regarding the source of this submission. Ms. Hershberger stated that she had received one document from Mr. Burgwold and the other document from Mr. Clindaniel.

The chair asked those individuals who wished to testify concerning this matter to limit their comments to three minutes. The chair recognized Ms. Judy Wilson, who stated that she had been sworn in, and was speaking as a representative and the county chairman of the LaPorte County Democratic Party. She said that her party had been circumvented in the precinct change process. Ms. Wilson stated that she had a copy of a newspaper article stating that Mr. Burgwold had been requested by the LaPorte County Commissioners to work with herself and Republican Party chairman Doc Mueller and County Council member Ron Clindaniel to redraw LaPorte County's precinct lines. She added that she has a copy of a letter that she had sent to Mr. Clindaniel indicating that we all need to get together to draw these lines with input from the Council, and asking for his participation as a member of the County Council or to appoint another person from that body to do so.

Ms. Wilson stated that she had also brought with her a copy of a letter to Mr. Clay Turner of the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners, dated in April, in which she stated that it would be wise for a representative of the county commissioners, as well as a representative from both parties and the city councils of LaPorte and Michigan City to be involved in the proposed precinct changes at an early stage. She added that she had asked the chairmen of each of these bodies to either participate in this endeavor, or to arrange for a representative of the body to do so. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Clindaniel had responded to her letter, and that she was certain from his response that he understood that she was requesting his participation as a member of the county council.

Ms. Wilson stated that she also objected to this precinct plan due to the impact of the precinct changes on legislative district lines. She indicated that she had brought copies of maps showing the legislative districts as they existed in 1990 and 1991, and showing the impact of precinct boundary change orders adopted by

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

the county. Ms. Wilson stated that one precinct order was the result of a changed Indiana house district line in Center Township. She added that she also objected to the proposed precinct plan since she believed the intent was to draw one precinct in LaPorte named 3-3 and another named 4-1, which are divided by a township line. Ms. Wilson stated that according to Mr. Burgwold, one of the resulting precincts would have a population of only forty or fifty voters. She added that Mr. Burgwold's line drawing brackets subdivisions of those precincts, signifying that his intention was to make them together.

Ms. Wilson stated that she is also a precinct committeeman in Precinct 3-2, and that in this order, the precinct would be located in more than one township. She indicated that this boundary change would result in problems with voters receiving the wrong ballot, or being directed to the wrong voting machines. Ms. Wilson added that as precinct committeemen, both she and her husband were inadvertently deprived of their right to participate in a precinct committeeman caucus to fill an office vacancy since they did not realize that a small part of a precinct crossed a township line.

Ms. Wilson testified that the exception to the Center Township block number actually is not in the same precinct as one run by the city of LaPorte, and that she had brought maps to document this.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern stated that he had worked on the bulk of the precinct changes for LaPorte County, but that since the last Commission meeting, he had also become involved in working with these changes.

The chair noted that the testimony indicated that the proposed precinct changes would not comply with Indiana Code 3-11-1.5-4 since proposed precinct LP 3-3 and LP 4-1 in Center Township would cross the Center-Kankakee township lines. Mr. Northern stated that Ms. Hershberger had noted when these precincts were originally proposed that the precincts would have breach the township line and as a result the county had submitted separate statements for these precincts. He indicated that as a result of this change, there was no longer a breach of the township line. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Wilson stated that she understood this, but that the summary sheet does not agree with this change.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Northern indicated that the summary sheets in this case are not in error, but that there was a conflict in the proposed order before the Commission since these precincts are not described as separate precincts. He added that he had discussed this problem with Mr. Burgwold, and understood that this problem had been discussed at the county commissioners last meeting regarding the precincts, and would be addressed in any final order. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Burgwold indicated that he had brought a hand corrected

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

copy of that portion of the final order with him for the Commission's consideration today. Ms. Hershberger indicated that the Commission had received a copy of the original proposed order signed by the county commissioners.

The chair recognized Ms. Wilson, who asked if the proposed order was approved whether the county would then have precincts designated as LP 3-3 and 4-1. Mr. Northern responded that there was a conflict in the order in the titles at the beginning of the text describing these precincts, that designating precincts as 4-1A and 4-1B would be necessary, and that this concern is addressed by Mr. Burgwold's amendment. Ms. Wilson asked if this result would allow the designation of a precinct committeeman would exist to serve fifty voters in Pleasant Township. Mr. Northern responded that this was correct. Ms. Wilson asked if Precinct 4-4 would continue to include approximately 400 voters in the same township. Mr. Northern responded that he did not know if this was correct. Ms. Wilson referred Commission members to the precinct maps for the City of LaPorte and indicated that this would be the case.

Mr. Morgan added that he wanted to be certain that Mr. Burgwold and Dr. Mueller had copies of all the material referred to by Ms. Wilson. The chair stated that this was important so that the Commission could work through each question one at a time. Mr. Northern said that 4-1A and 4-1B also resolved a township line problem. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Wilson stated that she objected to the creation of a precinct containing only forty voters when there is another township precinct in which these voters could be included. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold stated that one of these precincts was located within the corporate limits of the City of LaPorte, and as a result could not be combined with the precinct located in the unincorporated area of the township.

In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Burgwold indicated that a city ward line also prevented combining precinct 4-4 with either precinct 3-3A or 3-3B. He also rejected Ms. Wilson's claim that the proposal would change township lines. Ms. Wilson responded that she understood that precincts should not cross city ward lines, but that since a county election would be conducted before the next city election, it was more important that precincts not cross township lines. Mr. Northern noted that the state precinct boundary freeze would prevent changing any precinct lines after 1998 and before the 1999 city elections. Mr. Burgwold stated that there were at least three precincts in the city of LaPorte which had "A", "B", or "C" designations (such as 1-3A and 1-3B; 2-4A and 2-4B), and that the proposal before the Commission would reduce the number of "A" and "B" precincts. He added that even where "A" and "B" precincts still exist, the county commissioners use the same polling place to contain the voting place for both of these

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

precincts to reduce election costs. Ms. Wilson stated that voters in these precincts would still need two different ballot variations. Mr. Burgwold responded that Ms. Wilson's concerns were unworkable, and that he did not see how this would be the case in this instance unless the territory was disannexed from the city back into Pleasant Township.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Burgwold stated that proposed precincts 3-3A and 3-3B were located in two different townships (Center and Pleasant Townships) and were organized in this manner to prevent violating the state law against a precinct line crossing a township line. He noted that the proposed precinct establishment order approved by the county commissioners contained two different entries under the heading of Precinct 3-3, with a legal description and census block list for both of these precincts. He added that the order had a similar format for Precinct 4-1, which contained legal descriptions for 4-1A and 4-1B, which follows the Center Township Kankakee Township line. Mr. Burgwold said the order clearly intended to create two separate precincts. He emphasized it was important for the Commission to read the entire body of the proposed order when interpreting it.

Mr. Burgwold remarked that, to avoid confusion, the county commissioners have agreed to amend the proposed order to refer to ward 3, precincts 3A and 3B, and ward 4, precincts 1A and 1B.

Mr. Burgwold noted that the county commissioners have a two-step approval process to comply with the state law regarding precinct changes, namely: to have the first reading of the proposed order, refer the order to the Election Commission, and then have a second reading to make any adjustments suggested by the Election Commission, with second reading being the time of final approval of the order.

The chair stated that he clearly understood that the proposed precincts were not crossing any township lines. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that a triangular piece of territory on one map was a part of Scipio Township, and was a part of precinct 3-3A, but that this area was unpopulated and therefore could be included in the precinct under state statutes. He added that precinct 1-2 contains another unpopulated area located between the city limits and a railroad track, and that as a result, precinct 1-2 also crosses a township line.

Ms. Wilson repeated her objection to the creation of a precinct containing forty voters when there are precincts containing other voters in the City of LaPorte within the same township in which these voters could be included, and for which a precinct committeeman could be appointed. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Wilson stated that her objection applied to precincts 3-3B and 4-4, both of which are located within the City of LaPorte and within Pleasant Township, but which contain approximately fifty voters and five hundred voters, respectively.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Wilson confirmed that these two precincts are located in different wards. In response to an additional question from the chair concerning combining precincts in two different wards, Ms. Wilson stated that the City of LaPorte ward lines had been recently redrawn with the assistance of Mr. Burgwold. Mr. Burgwold responded that there are townships in LaPorte County containing approximately fifty voters of a political party who also elect precinct committeemen. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson agreed that under state law, the two unpopulated areas could be included within the same precinct, notwithstanding crossing a township line, but that her concern focused on populated areas within the township.

The chair then asked for testimony concerning the question of Indiana House District 20 crossing into House District 9 under the precinct proposal. The chair recognized Ms. Robertson, who stated that she and Ms. Tippett, Ms. Christie, Mr. King, Ms. Hershberger, and Mr. Northern had examined all the Election Division maps, including the 1991 census maps regarding this question. She stated that they found no violation of state law under the proposed precinct order where a precinct line would cross a House District line.

Ms. Wilson responded that she had brought copies of all county commissioner orders establishing precinct boundary lines in LaPorte County, and that if this is the case, there is a problem with the state redistricting law since the statute does not take this information into consideration. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson stated that the proposed precinct order would expand a small portion of Precinct Center Pine Lake into Precinct Center One. She added that the state House District Plan in Indiana Code Title 2 states that Precinct Center One is located in one House District, except for a single census block which is unannexed territory surrounded by the city. She noted that the area included in this census block is not the same as the area which she contended is being expanded into Precinct Center One. She indicated that if the Commission approved the proposed order, the area at issue would be transferred from Center One to Center Pine Lake. Mr. Long stated that his examination of the maps indicated to him that this would result in this part of the precinct being transferred from one House District to another. Ms. Wilson added that the voters in this area have been voting according to the House District lines shown on her maps for several years. Mr. Northern stated that the Election Division records conform with the state statutes and do not reflect the House District line as shown on Ms. Wilson's map.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that the House District statute indicated that Center Pine Lake was located in House District 20, and that it appeared to him that the proposed precinct change in Center One would cross line between House District 20 and House District 9.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that this situation was very complex, and had required some time for the staff working together to sort it through. He indicated that the state statute refers to the precinct lines not as they exist today, but as the lines existed on June 14, 1991, when the state legislature passed the statute establishing these House District lines. Mr. King said that all the Election Division's records, including the official census maps, indicate that the precincts referred to in the sections of Title 2 in establishing the line between House District 9 and House District 20 follow a line along Johnson Avenue on the north; County Road 400 West on the west; and County Road 150 North on the south. He added that the official census maps are incorporated into the state statute by reference. Mr. King stated that the proposed precincts would not cross the roads that make up this House District line.

Ms. Wilson responded that her 1990 map of LaPorte County precincts shows the line between these precincts to be the same as the current line between the precincts. Mr. King responded that there were a number of precinct boundary changes made by the State Election Board in 1989 and 1990 to bring precinct boundaries into line with census blocks and to prepare for redistricting after 1990. He added that these changes did not originate with the affected counties, and that if this was the explanation for the origin of this boundary, the precinct change was effective under state law based on the State Election Board's action, even if there was no local ordinance to implement the change. Ms. Wilson stated that if this was the case, the county voter registration office was never notified, and voters have been voting in the wrong House District as a result. Mr. Burgwold stated that if this was the case, the proposed precinct change would bring the precinct boundaries back in line with the intent of the state redistricting statute.

Ms. Wilson stated that according to her records, the House District line followed Caldwell Drive, Holton Road, and County Road 400 West. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Wilson stated that voters in the disputed area had been voting in Precinct Center One, which is located in House District 20. The chair stated that according to the Election Division's records, the voters should have been voting in House District 9. Mr. Burgwold stated that he recalled that these precinct lines had been reworked before the legislature conducted its redistricting in 1991. He recalled that the State Election Board had rejected the precinct boundary proposal for the west line of Center Pine Lake at that time since the line would not follow a census block line, and that as a result, the precinct line was established on County Road 400 West. Mr. Burgwold stated he believed that this change was reported to the county clerk at that time, and that no further action was taken at the county level.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Ms. Wilson responded that the State Election Board had contacted the county concerning similar census block line problems, and that these had been addressed by county orders issued in 1992. She noted that these orders had corrected a problem where a precinct line crossed a House District line in Michigan Township, and that since no other problems had been reported to the county voter registration office she assumed that the remaining precinct lines were in compliance.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that the investigation of this matter by the Election Division staff indicated that the House District boundary followed the Johnson Avenue-400 West- 150 North line. Ms. Robertson indicated that Ms. Hershberger was continuing to review the Election Division's records regarding this question, and would be returning to the meeting to advise the Commission concerning any additional information that she finds.

The chair then asked for testimony regarding the objection concerning the redrawing of county commissioner districts. Ms. Wilson stated that the result of changing the precinct boundaries would be to also change the county commissioner election district lines. She referred to the county ordinance which established these election districts, which she stated defined the election districts by precinct. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Ms. Wilson stated that she believed that the intent was not to change the county commissioner election districts, but that this would result from changing the precinct lines.

The chair recognized Mr. Burgwold, who noted that this issue had been addressed at the last Commission meeting. He remarked that these districts were used for residency purposes, and not for representation, since all county commissioner candidates run countywide, all voters in the county cast a ballot for a candidate in all county commissioner election districts. Mr. Burgwold stated that as a result, precinct lines can cross county commissioner election district lines. He added that when the county ordinance creating these districts was codified, the codifiers realized that the county ordinance is not required to define the election districts by precincts and felt that the districts should also be described as depicted on a map. Mr. Burgwold said that the ordinance creating the commissioner districts contained a map depicting the roads that form the boundaries of the county commissioner election districts. He added that the LaPorte County commissioners also have the authority under state statute to redistrict county council districts, and that the ordinance establishing county council districts contained a reference indicating that the county commissioner districts would not change from the districts as depicted on this map.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that he obtained the information concerning these commissioner districts from the county code. Mr. Long said that he did not see any reference to a map in County Ordinance 93-17, but instead saw the county commissioner districts delineated by precincts. Mr. Burgwold responded that section 2-3 of the county code refers to the fact that these commissioner districts are depicted on a map.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold and Ms. Wilson agreed that the precincts comprising each county commissioner district have the same boundaries that these precincts had in 1993. Dr. Mueller and Mr. Burgwold added that if the Election Commission approves the proposed change in precinct boundary lines, the county commissioner election district lines would remain unchanged.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that he and Ms. Robertson had examined the pertinent state statutes and agree that the alteration of precinct boundaries will not alter the county commissioner district lines. He noted that under the Home Rule Law (Indiana Code 36-1-3-8), elections may not be conducted except in the manner authorized by state law. Mr. King indicated that the method prescribed by state law for establishing county commissioner election districts is set forth in Indiana Code 36-2-2-4, which specifies that an ordinance must be adopted whenever county commissioner election districts are changed. He noted that in this case, there is no provision in the state election code (IC 3) which indicates that simply by altering a precinct line, a county could circumvent the requirement to adopt an ordinance to change county commissioner district lines. Mr. King stated that a county would be required to adopt a separate ordinance under IC 36-2-2-4 to legally alter the county commissioner election district boundaries. He also noted that under the state law governing precincts, a county may alter precinct boundaries by adopting an order, but an ordinance must be adopted under IC 36-2-2-4 to alter county commissioner districts. Mr. King stated that the "Rule of Equal Dignities" would apply here, with the result that an ordinance cannot be amended except by adopting another ordinance. He added that Indiana Code 36-1-6-10 also implies that the county commissioners cannot evade the requirement to adopt an ordinance to change county commissioner district lines simply by adopting a precinct boundary change order.

In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. King stated that this situation was analogous to the earlier question concerning state legislative districts in that none of the precinct boundary changes approved by the Commission today, or at earlier meetings since 1991, have the effect of altering the state legislative district lines referenced in the Indiana Code. He noted that the Commission, by its own action, cannot change state legislative district lines, and that the same principle applies in this case.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Dr. Mueller added that since all of the proposed precinct changes would be within the Second Commissioner District he did not understand the point of this objection. She responded that precinct changes were proposed in Springfield, Scipio, and x townships, and that these townships are located in two different county commissioner election districts.

Mr. Perkins requested that Dr. Mueller and Ms. Wilson address the chair, and not respond to one another. The chair recognized Dr. Mueller, who stated that he did not see how any change in county commissioner districts could result from the proposed changes.

The chair then recognized Ms. Christie, who stated that Ms. Hershberger had brought a document titled "Precinct Data Base, Adams through Madison" and another document titled "Precinct Data Base, Marion through Whitley" from the Election Division records. She indicated that these documents are dated October 1991, and contain information concerning congressional and state legislative district lines, as well as voter registration information for these districts. In response to a question from Ms. Christie, Ms. Hershberger indicated that the maps in this document were products of the geographic information system maintained by the former State Election Board. Ms. Christie stated that the maps of House District 9 and House District 20 in this document indicate that the House District line follows Johnson Avenue and County Road 400 West. Mr. Morgan remarked that this situation was similar to the question last year concerning state senate district lines in South Bend and Mishawaka. The chair stated that the circuit court clerk should be notified that the voters located in this area should be voting in House District 20 and not in House District 9.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Christie stated that this document appears to contain a map depicting each precinct in Indiana, and that the precinct lines appear to be those used by the general assembly in performing its redistricting in 1991. She added that Ms. Hershberger understood that this data base had been created by Mr. David Maidenberg, her predecessor who served as Executive Director of the State Election Board during 1991. Mr. Burgwold stated that the proposed precinct lines were intended to follow the actual state legislative district lines.

The chair recognized Dr. Mueller, who congratulated the Election Commissioners for their willingness to study the details of this matter. He stated that a great deal of work had gone into the preparation of the proposed precinct changes, and added that he believed that an examination of any county in this state would reveal imperfections in the precinct lines. He stated that this proposal was an attempt to correct some bad problems that had occurred in past elections, particularly in the City of LaPorte area, where some voters reside in one city ward, but are registered and cast ballots for candidates in another city ward.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Dr. Mueller stated that he was not even aware of the problem concerning state representative districts, and that he was pleased that this matter would also be corrected by the adoption of this precinct proposal. He added that he did not think any political party would derive an advantage from the proposed plan, and that any marginal advantage would involve altering the plan to have a precinct cross a city ward line, which would result in confusion to city voters.

Mr. Burgwold stated that this plan also represented a large number of manhours contributed by himself and Mr. Clindaniel. He noted that the plan would alleviate the problems caused by precinct lines crossing ward lines in the city of LaPorte, precinct lines crossing state representative district lines, and congestion in precincts containing more than 1,200 voters, which discourages some people from voting. Mr. Burgwold said that any voter confusion resulting from precinct changes is usually addressed by media coverage, especially in the press, which prints maps showing precinct changes and polling locations. He stated that the plan reflected bipartisan cooperation among those who worked on the precincts, and in the vote by the county commissioners when they approved the proposed plan. Mr. Burgwold thanked the Commission members for their time and attention.

Ms. Wilson stated that she was concerned with precincts in the Town of Westville, which crossed town boundary lines, and one of which presently contained almost 1,200 voters. Mr. Burgwold responded that when these precincts had been studied, it was noted that if the Town of Westville would comprise one precinct, the precinct would violate state law by exceeding 1,200 voters. He indicated that as a result, the plan proposed to increase the number of precincts in this area from two to three. He added that overall there had been no increase or decrease in the number of precincts in the county. Ms. Wilson disputed whether this statement was accurate.

The chair recognized Mr. Morgan for questions. He stated that he wished Mr. Clindaniel was here to address the Commission, and was surprised that he was not. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Dr. Mueller stated that he did not know why the City of Michigan City refused to participate in this process. Ms. Wilson stated first that Mr. Burgwold had presented line drawings of proposed precincts to the council, and that it was impossible to determine the intent of those plans, and secondly noted that since the proposed precinct plans used 1990 census figures, they did not reflect population growth in the first ward due to the location of the riverboat casino in that area since the census was taken. She added that Mr. Burgwold had objected when the City of Michigan City redrew its council lines in 1993, and continued to object to those lines.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Mr. Burgwold responded that Mr. Clindaniel was unable to attend since he is employed by the school system and could not get away for this meeting, and that he was lucky to be able to attend himself. With regard to Michigan City, he stated that he had approached the city council there in the same manner as the city council of LaPorte, but noted that he believed that before the precinct lines there could be changed, it was necessary to redraw city council lines, a task which only the city council may do. Mr. Burgwold stated that: (1) the current city council lines were not as nearly equal in population as they could be; (2) the current lines tended to dilute minority voting; and (3) the districts were not as compact as they could be, all of which has been mandated by the United States Supreme Court. He testified that four alternative council districts had been submitted to the Michigan City common council from which the council had been invited to choose a plan which would meet each of the three requirements. Mr. Burgwold stated that the city had indicated it was not interested in these plans. He added that 1990 census figures had been used since courts had ruled that the 1990 census figures must be used in drawing redistricting plans until the next decennial census, or until the city pays for its own special census.

Responding to a question from Mr. Morgan concerning how many people were involved in the ongoing effort to develop the packet of information Mr. Burgwold presented at the last Commission meeting, Mr. Burgwold stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had been the individuals at forefront of this project, along with the county commissioners, and all the members of the LaPorte city council. He indicated that they wished for all the members of the Michigan City council to participate, but that they chose not to. Responding to a further question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Burgwold stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had meet to discuss every proposed precinct change, and that he had relied on Mr. Clindaniel's familiarity with the City of LaPorte.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Clindaniel had responded to her letter of April 4, 1997 by indicating in a conversation with her his understanding that Mr. Burgwold would be representing the county council in the work on this project. She added that Dr. Mueller later appointed Mr. Burgwold as the representative of his party on this project. Mr. Burgwold responded that Dr. Mueller had made this recommendation to the county commissioners, since that body is responsible for redrawing county precinct lines, and had delegated its responsibilities to this group.

Mr. Morgan stated that he was disappointed in everyone's efforts, including Chairman Wilson and Chairman Mueller, for not working harder on the front end of this project for the process of

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

inclusion. He said that some of the resulting problems are not their fault, but a lot of it is. Mr. Morgan stated that this resulted in last minute scurrying, with the staff attempting to resolve these types of problems. He stated that the Election Division works long hours, and is understaffed, but does a very good job of traveling to communities to work on precinct changes. Mr. Morgan stated that a larger group of individuals should have been involved with reviewing these precinct changes. He acknowledged that this is painstaking, tedious work, but stated that he had seen instances in several counties, including his own, where having a small number of individuals involved in preparing these changes and only consulting with other individuals at the end of the process was not desirable.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan as to why she had not appointed another representative if Mr. Clindaniel was not desirable to include on this project, Ms. Wilson stated that she had represented her party as county chairman, and felt that both county chairmen should be involved, as well as the county council.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan concerning whether he was satisfied with the extent of inclusion in this case, Mr. Burgwold stated he had met more frequently with Ms. Wilson than with his own party chairman concerning this project. He stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel (and briefly, Dr. Mueller) had met with Ms. Wilson the afternoon of the day in July that the first precinct plan was to be presented to the county commissioners. Mr. Burgwold stated that Ms. Wilson voiced many objections to this plan, which came as a surprise to Mr. Clindaniel and himself.

Ms. Wilson stated that she did not remember Mr. Clindaniel participating in this meeting. She stated that Mr. Burgwold had shown her a map of proposed precincts in Kankakee Township which had been drawn over a map showing the names of property owners.

Mr. Morgan noted that the problems regarding the precinct changes had apparently begun in July 1997, and asked when they had approached the Election Division staff. Mr. Burgwold stated that he believed he had contacted the staff at that time. He added that he had wanted to begin this project earlier, but was told to wait by Ms. Wilson since the Election Division staff would bring up a computer which would show the location of each census block. Mr. Burgwold testified that he waited a month, but became concerned that the county could not meet the deadline, and felt that he could not wait any longer to begin.

Mr. Morgan stated that he commended everyone for their efforts on this project, but that he was concerned by the decision of Michigan City not to participate. Ms. Wilson said that Mr. Burgwold and Mr. Clindaniel had met with her one time each to present her with proposed maps, and that Mr. Clindaniel was aware that she would object to some of the precinct changes.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes



In response to a question from Mr. Morgan concerning the number of public meetings concerning this plan, Ms. Wilson stated that the first public meeting had been conducted on December 23. Mr. Burgwold added that the proposed precincts had been included in an order submitted to the county commissioners at a meeting during the previous July. He stated that the proposed changes for both the townships and the City of LaPorte had twice been placed on the commissioners' agenda.

Mr. Morgan noted that LaPorte County uses a punch card voting system. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan concerning the efforts of the county to reduce some of the polling place lines, Dr. Mueller stated that the county had emergency equipment on standby in the event of breakdowns. He added that many of the concerns expressed by Ms. Wilson were not the result of proposed precinct changes, but had existed in LaPorte County for many years. Dr. Mueller stated that, with the exception of the last municipal election where some voters in Ward One of the City of LaPorte received the wrong ballot, there had not been any voting problems in the precincts designated "A", "B", or "C". He indicated that the proposed plan was not perfect, but would reduce these potential problems. Mr. Burgwold stated that when precinct changes were made in the past, he had worked to provide the county voter registration office with log books and street directories depicting the changes.

Mr. Morgan requested additional information from staff regarding the issue of the House District lines in this case. Mr. King responded that, based on all the information available to the Election Division regarding the true location of the boundary line between House District 9 and House District 20 (including the 1991 redistricting information, and the information called up on the laptop computer), the House District boundary follows the Johnson Avenue-CR 400 West-CR 150 North line. He stated that if this information is correct, the proposed precinct changes in LaPorte County do not cross the Indiana House District line, and would comply with state law on this point.

Ms. Hershberger added that she was not certain she could provide a precise answer to Mr. Morgan's earlier question about when staff was first contacted concerning these changes, but she did note that she received Mr. Burgwold's initial letter in August. She added that due to problems in loading the precinct data for LaPorte County onto her laptop, she had initially refused to proceed with the review of the proposed changes without assistance from an individual familiar with LaPorte County. She noted that Mr. Burgwold had finally agreed to visit the Election Division to assist with the review of the precinct changes. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Ms. Hershberger indicated that representatives from both major political parties were not present at that meeting. She noted that it would be very difficult in many cases to coordinate a meeting with three or more individuals, and

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes



for that reason, the staff required written statements indicating that both major party chairs were aware of proposed precinct changes.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Dr. Mueller stated that if the county commissioners had done their job by reprecincting in 1993 after the cities of LaPorte and Michigan City had changed their ward lines, there would be no need to present this plan to the Election Commission today. Mr. Long stated that in his experience as a county chairman, it was understood that the commissioners were in charge of precinct lines. He added that in his county, both parties had always been included in discussions regarding precinct line changes, and as a result, a dispute of this type had not occurred. He stated that he did not understand the consternation that had arisen regarding this proposal.

Mr. Burgwold responded that this was not a Republican versus Democrat plan, and noted that Mr. Clindaniel, a Democrat, had participated in its preparation, and that the plan had been approved by the unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners, which included both Democratic and Republican members. He added that since the last two precinct change plans had been adopted without any dispute, this contention was as much a mystery to him as it might be to Commission members. Dr. Mueller added that he did not understand this dispute, since he did not see the plan as giving an advantage to either political party. He expressed the concern that for a couple of elections, voters in one precinct have been voting for candidates running in another ward.

Ms. Wilson responded that she had asked Dr. Mueller to work with her in resolving this ward problem.

Mr. Morgan asked for the chair's view of these matters. The chair responded that he believed that the Commission had addressed the concerns expressed regarding the effect of the proposed precinct changes: (1) concerning county commissioner district lines, which would not be changed; (2) concerning township lines, which would not be improperly crossed by precincts under this plan; the rationale for why a precinct would be established in Pleasant Township with fifty voters; (4) concerning precincts in the Third and Fourth Wards, which should be revised to prevent a precinct from being placed in more than one ward; and (5) the question concerning Indiana House District lines. He stated that he believed that the Commission had addressed all of Ms. Wilson's concerns.

The chair asked staff members if they had any additional information to present. There was no response.

Mr. Long requested a five minute recess at this time. There being no objection, the chair declared the meeting in recess at 4:33 p.m.

The Commission reconvened at 4:40 p.m., with the same members present, and at the same location.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

The chair asked what the legal ramifications would be if the Commission did not vote to approve precincts that appear to meet all of the requirements set forth in the Indiana Code, according to the review conducted by staff. Mr. King responded that the precinct boundary approval statute does contemplate a situation where the Commission would not vote to approve a proposed precinct plan, but the statute requires that a proposed precinct establishment order must then be referred back to the county with information specifically identifying why the proposed order is defective. He stated that the Commission could not simply reject a plan, and added that the Commission's action would be subject to challenge through litigation if this requirement were not met. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King stated that, in this hypothetical instance, suit could be brought for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to act in accordance with the statute, and that other legal theories could be used by those pursuing this litigation.

There being no further testimony or discussion, the chair closed the hearing on this matter. Stating that based on the recommendation by staff that the proposed precinct changes in this case comply with all statutory requirements, Mr. Cruea moved that Order 1998-04 be approved as presented. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Long requested a roll call vote, which the chair granted.

Upon the direction of the chair, Mr. King called the roll, with the following result:

Mr. Cruea..............................aye

Mr. Long...............................nay

Mr. Morgan.............................nay

Mr. Perkins........................... aye.

The chair stated that the roll call showed a vote of two ayes, and two nays on this motion, and since three affirmative votes were required, the motion was not adopted.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who moved that the proposed precinct establishment order be referred back to the LaPorte County Commissioners to conduct a public hearing as soon as possible to make findings relative to the issues raised by Ms. Wilson at this hearing, and to report back to the Election Commission. He added that his motion also including the tabling of this matter until the next meeting to be conducted by the Commission, which was scheduled for no later than January 20, 1998. Mr. Long stated that he believed that this referral back to the county with instructions would be in compliance with the statute. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. King stated that in the absence of three affirmative votes, the Election Commission's statute provides that no official action is taken. Mr. Perkins stated that in this case, the vote did not constitute a rejection, and further action could be taken by the Commission at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Long stated that he agreed, and had moved to table the matter since he believed that the county still had a viable application. He added that he believed that the county could conduct a public hearing, make the required findings, and bring this matter back to the Commission in time for final action.

In response to a question from Mr. Burgwold, Mr. Long stated that his motion contemplated the LaPorte County county commissioners, as county executive, making findings regarding the issues discussed by the Election Commission today. He stated that a public hearing held by the county commissioners was the proper forum to resolve these matters, and that if this was done, his vote on this order might well change. Mr. Burgwold stated that this might be impractical due to the time constraints, and as a result the Commission's action could be seen as dilatory to have the time run out on this matter.

In response to a question from the chair concerning the date of the next county commissioners' meeting, Dr. Mueller noted that even the county commissioners could meet, candidate filing begins January 21, 1998. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King noted that the deadline for Election Commission action on proposed precinct changes would be January 20, 1998. The chair noted that the county commissioners could call a special meeting by posting proper notice, and that the Election Commission planned to meet again by that date.

Mr. Burgwold indicated that he could not attend that Election Commission meeting. He stated that the Election Commission had acted without any good reason, since it had been advised that the proposed precinct changes met all the requirements of the statute. He added that the Commission had imposed additional requirements that could not be met within the statutory timelines.

Mr. Perkins responded that he did not believe this was the message being sent by the Commission. He stated that with a vote of 2 to 2 regarding the plan, and with one member indicating his willingness to change his vote based on subsequent action by the county commissioners, the Commission had indicated there was still a possibility to approve a precinct plan that would meet with the support of all members of the Commission. He added that even if Mr. Burgwold could not attend the next meeting, the Commission had the benefit of his testimony, which would not be forgotten before the next meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Burgwold, Mr. Long stated that notification of the county commissioners regarding any action taken by the Commissioners did not require a formal, written response.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

In response to a question from Dr. Mueller, Mr. Long asked staff to furnish the county by facsimile transmission with the two letters setting forth the issues identified by the Commission at today's hearing.

Mr. Long stated that he found this process very frustrating, and that if a hearing regarding these issues had been conducted before the county commissioners, rather than before the Commission, his position might be very different. He remarked that these matters should have been addressed in LaPorte County, and that it seemed that a forum had not been accorded for the minority Democratic opposition to address these issues. Mr. Long said that he did not think the county had an inclusionary process in this case, but that he could get over that objection. He stated, however, that he did not believe that the county commissioners had addressed the questions raised regarding their own plan, and that they should do so before the Commission acted.

Mr. Burgwold stated that he did not know about some of these issues until he attended the Commission's first meeting, and that it is very difficult to address issues if someone keeps quiet about them until the eleventh hour, and perhaps that was the plan. He added that if it was so, so far it had been effective. Mr. Morgan said that he agreed that there needs to be a better exchange of ideas and information before the eleventh hour on everybody's part. Mr. Burgwald stated that he was concerned regarding the implications of credibility resulting from this meeting; he stated that all objections raised to the proposed plan had been addressed and overturned.

Mr. Long then called for the question on his motion.

Dr. Mueller stated that Ms. Wilson did not appear at the county commissioners' meeting when the plan was presented originally, and questioned whether she would appear at any subsequent meeting. Mr. Burgwold stated that she had appeared when the township precinct changes were presented, and was opposed to any changes whatsoever.

Making a point of order, Mr. Perkins noted that the question had been called, and asked for the chair to proceed with a vote on this motion.

There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

The chair then suggested that the LaPorte County Commissioners proceed to conduct a public meeting and make findings of fact regarding the issues discussed at the meeting today. Dr. Mueller stated this won't happen. The chair added that if Ms. Wilson does not attend that the Commission should be provided with minutes of

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

the Commissioners' meeting. Mr. Burgwold responded that as an appointee of the county commissioners, he had to report back to them regarding the Election Commission meeting, and believed that they would reach the same conclusion that he had: that there was nothing further to be done.

4. CAMPAIGN FINANCE ENFORCEMENT:

A. STATUS REPORT CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY FILED ORDERS:

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who noted that Commission members had received a spreadsheet in their packets showing committees which have not paid their fines, along with letters from the Attorney General's office concerning these committees. The spreadsheet and letters are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Ms. Thompson reported that the Attorney General's office had decided to close their files on these committees since they are not cost effective to pursue. She noted, however, that the John Holmes for State Representative Committee will remain open since the candidate has made arrangements with the Attorney General's office to make four partial payments regarding this fine.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that if an individual on this list files for office, and is elected, state law provides for the penalty to be garnished from the salary. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Thompson stated that many of these committees have debts, and cannot be closed as a result, and that they remain subject to reporting and filing requirements. The chair noted that these committees would then be liable to additional fines, and that he expected that many would fail to file reports on time.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King stated that there was a two year statute of limitations in which to collect these civil penalties. He added that following this period, the files referencing these violations would become inactive.

B. STANDARDS CONCERNING EXCESS CORPORATE AND LABOR CONTRIBUTIONS:

The chair noted that no one was in attendance to speak to the Commission regarding this matter, and deferred further action on this topic.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

5. VOTING SYSTEM CERTIFICATIONS:

A.STATUS REPORT CONCERNING RECERTIFICATION OF ELECTION SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE PC/BT VOTING SYSTEM:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who reported that Commission members had received a copy of a letter dated January 8, 1998 from Wyle Laboratories to Mr. Herb Deutsch of ES&S regarding the testing of this system's software by Wyle Laboratories. He added that the packet also contained a letter, dated January 9, 1998, addressed to Mr. King from Mr. Dan McGinnis, Vice-President of ES&S, which requests that this voting system be referred to Information Services Division (ISD) for further testing in the same manner that the Commission had used in considering previous voting system certifications. These letters are incorporated by reference into these minutes.

The chair recognized Mr. Rob McGinnis, who stated that ES&S was continuing to seek recertification of its current ballot card voting system. He noted that the PC/BT system has been used for twelve years in Indiana, and in many other states. Mr. McGinnis stated that the system has undergone accuracy and reliability testing at Wyle Laboratories, and that his company would like to complete the recertification process. He noted that the Wyle Laboratories letter described the 163 hours of continuous testing of the system, which resulted in zero mistakes. Mr. McGinnis stated that as a result, ES&S believes that this system has been subjected to more system than any other ballot card voting system, and that he doubted that ISD would perform any more extensive testing on the system.

Mr. McGinnis noted that there was one question outstanding regarding the voting system's software, which was developed before the adoption of the Federal Election Commission guidelines for software. He indicated that when Wyle examined the system, they noted that the software does not meet current FEC standards. He stated that when ES&S examined the system software, they noted that the current voting system does work well, and if the company does spend time and money to revise the software, the software code might not work properly. Mr. McGinnis said that ES&S believes that the customers will get no benefit from the company revising this system's software code at this point, and that the company will not do so.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who reported that he had met with Mr. McGinnis and Mr. Deutsch about a week ago to discuss this matter, and that the staff's recommendation as a result of this meeting was: (1) to the extent that ISD can ensure that the software meets the additional Indiana standards, that the voting system be referred to ISD to test for that purpose; and (2) to

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

address the practical concerns raised by ES&S regarding the system's compliance with FEC software standards, to address staff to work on a remedy in the form of an amendment to the state statutes to permit the Election Commission to recertify this system notwithstanding its failure to comply with certain FEC standards. Mr. King noted that the FEC standards could not have been foreseen when the software code was developed in the 1980's.

The chair recognized Mr. McGinnis, who stated that he would be surprised if ISD checks system codes, but that he was certain that the system would meet all other statutory requirements. He added that if it was the will of the Commission, ES&S would be happy to take this system to ISD.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, to approve the staff recommendation in this matter. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins) voting "aye" and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Mr. McGinnis asked if ES&S needed to get with ISD to schedule the testing. Staff responded that this was correct.

B.STATUS REPORT CONCERNING RECERTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS ACCU-TAB VOTING SYSTEM:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that this system had been referred to ISD for testing, but that there was no additional information to report on this matter at this time.

6. LITIGATION UPDATE:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that he had spoken with Ms. Cindy Lott of the Attorney General's office, who advised him that there were no new developments to report at this time concerning either Anderson v. Long or BAPAC v. Baldwin.

7. CO-DIRECTORS' REPORT:

The Co-Directors stated that they had no additional information to report.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

8. OTHER BUSINESS:

A.OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE:

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that after the last meeting he had written a letter to the Secretary of State expressing his concerns regarding the autonomy of the Election Division. He stated that he did not intend to criticize the Secretary of State, and understood the need for accountability. Mr. Long said that he had since talked with Mr. Brad Gerstner of the Secretary of State's Office, but was not aware of any recent developments concerning this matter.

Mr. Long suggested that it would be useful to discuss these questions when time permitted a more detailed examination of the issues. He praised the staff for its work, and said that he hoped the bipartisan organization of the office under the statute could work in an harmonious way.

The chair stated that he would like for the Co-Directors to sit down with Mr. Gerstner and Mr. Fred Biesecker of the Governor's Office to work out some proposals that the Commission could address at a future meeting. Ms. Tippett said that she could not speak for Mr. Biesecker, that Ms. Christie had been silent, and that she has always spoken with Mr. Gerstner, so she was not sure what is to be gained on that issue. She stated that she would be willing to meet with whomever the Commission believed she should meet with on this issue.

Mr. Long stated that he agreed with the chair that, with direction from the Commission, that this approach go forward, and that if it would be productive, to have himself and the chair join this meeting. He noted that their presence would not create a quorum of the Commission subject to the Open Door Law. In his observation, the current system had worked well in the past, and that these discussions could be helpful to see how the office can work in the future.



9. ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that the Commission do now adjourn. The chair called the question and declared the motion adopted with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay".

The Commission then adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Indiana Election Commission

January 13, 1998 Minutes

Respectfully Submitted,


________________________  ___________________________
Laurie P. Christie                    Mary Ann Tippett
Co-Director                             Co-Director


APPROVED:



__________________________