Scott County election board holds meeting to further discuss absentee ballot application complaints and procedural concerns

In their November 13 meeting, the county Election Board addressed several issues. First were the allegations involving an absentee ballot application submitted by Iva Gasaway. After a thorough review of the evidence, including video footage of the incident, board counsel Zach Stewart expressed his professional opinion that no election law violation occurred, concluding that there was no “culpable mental state” required for a criminal offense. His recommendation was that the board find no violation and forgo any further hearings on the matter.

The investigation stemmed from complaints regarding absentee ballot applications that were turned in directly to the clerk's office by Gasaway, with allegations focusing on possible discrepancies in dates allegedly altered.

Stewart explained that the Election Board has authority to conduct expedited investigations when there is a substantial reason to believe a violation may have occurred. However, after reviewing the evidence, he advised that no actionable violation existed, as the materials and actions reviewed did not meet the standards for prosecutable election law breaches.

Despite board member Teresa Lewis expressing shock at the video footage and confusion over aspects of the complaint, the board ultimately agreed with Stewart's recommendation. There were members who reviewed the evidence independently, and all concurred that pursuing the matter would likely not yield a conviction.

Gasaway attested that she was not an employer, union officer, or agent of the applicants and had no reason to believe they were ineligible to vote. Stewart said everything Gasaway attested to, were true. “No perjury or crime.” The board unanimously voted that there were no findings to election law violations. Board members acknowledged that while no violation occurred, this case highlighted potential areas for improvement in absentee ballot application handling procedures.

Another issue discussed and addressed was additional concerns related to missing disclaimers on campaign mailers distributed by the Democrats. The issue involves state-required disclaimers that were absent from envelopes containing campaign materials. In cases involving candidates that had election signs posted without proper disclaimers, the board provided an opportunity to correct the issue. Board counsel suggested offering a similar opportunity to the Democratic group, proposing that representatives demonstrate any corrective actions taken to comply with disclaimer requirements following notification.

Democrat representative Brad Boswell told the board, “They didn't know it was an issue.” He went on to explain that it was heard through informal channels and clarified that the disclaimer was, “on the inside.” He said Denny Wilson immediately reached out and once it was confirmed, the mailings were stopped. They added a sticker disclaimer to the envelopes before sending more. “They proactively fixed the issue,” stated Boswell.

The board emphasized that all campaign materials must meet state disclaimer requirements to ensure transparency and accountability in election communications. Boswell presented evidence showing the correction, with an original mailer and a revised mailer.

The board acknowledged that the Democratic Party's response was proactive and consistent with how other candidates addressed similar disclaimer issues. Boswell reiterated that the oversight was unintentional, with the party moving quickly to rectify it as soon as they were informed. He informed the board the Democratic Party has been in discussions about ways to be proactive in the campaigns, including having the disclaimer printed directly on the envelopes. The board accepted the corrective action, recognizing the Democratic Party's commitment to compliance and transparency.

The Election Board is also reviewing compliance issues related to campaign finance filings by both the Democrats and Republicans. This stems from recent findings that certain required reports, due in April, were not filed on time by either committee, raising questions about oversight and procedural follow-through.

During the meeting, Shelton explained that the issue came to light as she conducted an in-depth review of Campaign Finance Application programs and requirements after a request from Wilson for 2022 filings. This prompted her to reach out to the Indiana Election Division for additional guidance on the reporting requirements for political committees. Both parties are required to file reports at specific times during election years, such as pre-primary and pre-general reports, and one annual report during non-election years.

Shelton noted that although she had checked compliances for candidate filings in the spring, “the central committees' reports had not initially appeared on her radar.” She clarified that her office had sent delinquent notices for the pre-general, but no such notifications were sent for the pre-primary period. The board acknowledged there were some unique circumstances and challenges which potentially contributed to the parties' delay in submission.

The board will consider the fact that the April delinquency was only flagged recently, rather than in the spring. Boswell clarified that the Democratic Party and Democratic Club were two different entities and that they are working diligently to get filings in order. While they aim to file the most recent general election report within two weeks, he noted that completing all necessary filings could take up to 30 days.

The board clarified that the purpose of the December 9 meeting will be to review the completed filings. Any discussion of late fees or potential penalties will occur only after the board has had a chance to examine the submitted documents. Should a separate hearing on penalties be required, that would be addressed at a later date.

The board voted to table further discussion regarding chain of custody issues on absentee ballot applications until their next meeting, December 9 at 4 p.m. This is the result of concerns raised about missing dates on forms submitted by individuals assisting voters.

Officials clarified that while every affected voter's application was processed to ensure ballots were counted, the lack of receipt dates on some forms has created a compliance issue.

The absentee ballot applications in question were brought in by individuals assisting voters, but the chain of custody section - where the date of receipt by the assisting person is recorded – was not completed on multiple applications. Election Board counsel advised that Indiana law requires this date for tracking purposes, with both the Indiana Election Division and the Secretary of State confirming its necessity. While the missing dates did not affect the voter's ballots, the board acknowledged that future improvements are necessary. “We need to ensure all individuals assisting with absentee ballots are fully aware of the chain of custody requirements,” board member Jessica Allen-Feder remarked, suggesting that absentee ballot applications be sent directly to the clerk's office in the future to avoid similar issues.

The board plans to review redacted versions of the applications before the next meeting on December 9. The board will then decide if any follow-up action or hearings are necessary. Board members will review the applications independently ahead of time, and no determinations regarding potential violations or further actions will be made until the public meeting. Any required hearings to address specific compliance issues will follow due process, including notification of the individuals involved.

The board ended the meeting by unanimously voting to move forward with selecting an attorney to represent the board on election-related legal matters. The decision to engage Pat MaGrath, a seasoned election law expert, was contingent on securing budget approval for the upcoming year.