Indiana’s secretary of state race landed in court Friday afternoon with a recurring theme: holding state candidates and election officials accountable.
Independent candidate Greg Ballard sued the Indiana Election Commission last week, arguing the group needed to meet in order to hear campaign finance complaints filed against other candidates, primarily Republican Max Engling.
At issue is a $60,000 campaign donation to Engling that he said was quickly returned by his campaign. Other complaints include events Democrat Beau Bayh attended but did not disclose.
Bayh has called those complaints “frivolous.”
Republican David Shelton joined the suit earlier this week. He has argued that even though the Engling campaign returned its donation, there still needs to be a hearing to take a look at the dark money donor, a U.S. Sen. Jim Banks-affiliated group, Hoosier Leadership for America.
The Indiana Election Commission is not required to meet before the election, but Ballard argued in court that complaints before the commission deserve to be heard.
“The overall purpose of all election laws is to protect the voters' will,” Ballard’s attorney, Michelle Harter, argued. “My client Greg Ballard is not asking this court to tell the Indiana Election Commission how to do their job. He's only asking the court to order them to do it.”
Ballard’s attorney further argued that the Commission has abdicated its duty to uphold the state’s campaign finance laws.
“Subjects of those complaints are secretary of state candidates themselves. One of the secretary of state's core responsibilities is being Indiana's chief election officer,” Harter argued, making it essential that enforcement takes place.
She argued that Ballard has standing to bring the suit because two of his opponents have outstanding campaign finance complaints.
“The public has a right to know the outcome of those complaints,” she said.
The Commission has not met since July but has set a meeting for November 20th, following the election. Ballard argued that move is not sufficient.
The state’s attorney, Ellen Queen, argued that the preliminary injunction Ballard filed in the case was an improper move.
“This is ultimately an attempt by a political candidate to use the commission to influence voters before election day,” Queen said.
The state also argued that Ballard lacked real standing to bring the suit at all. Queen said that there wasn’t enough time to meaningfully hear the complaints before election day.
She also argued that the remedy Ballard sought wouldn't make sense.
“Forcing a meeting does nothing but place the members in a room together to discuss the complaints,” she said. “It doesn't mean that a violation will be found or dismissed, nor that any penalties will be imposed.”
The state added that bringing the commission together would harm election integrity.
“The public has an interest also in political candidates for office not being able to weaponize meetings of the commission against their opponents to influence voter opinion,” Queen concluded.
In her response, Ballard’s attorney called the state’s argument “projection.”
“It’s curious and alarming that the commission is accusing my client of weaponizing the commission by asking them to hear the complaints that were filed,” Harter said.
Judge Jennifer Harrison told the parties she would issue an order before the end of Monday, Oct. 26th.
Outside the court, Ballard told reporters it was important that the public gets a chance to hear the complaints.
“They [the election commission] weaponized this by not meeting. They made it political by not meeting, and it's really obvious,” Ballard said. “I'm doing just the opposite. I'm doing this on behalf of the voter.”
Election day is Nov. 3.
Contact Government Reporter Benjamin Thorp at bthorp@wfyi.org
