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 > 1997 Archived IEC Minutes > December 23, 1997 Meeting Minutes Meeting Minutes

INDIANA ELECTION COMMISION MINUTES


INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 23, 1997



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, of Carmel; Mr. B.A. Burgwold, of Michigan City; Mr. Michael Davis, Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Ms. Wendy Davis, Marion County Election Board; Ms. Kathy Heiser, Lake County Combined Election Board; Mr. Ed Mueller, of LaPorte; 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 December 23, 1997 meeting of the Indiana Election Commission to order at 1:43 p.m. in Conference Center Room #4, 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.

2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES; CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINUTES:

The chair noted that copies of the minutes of the December 9, 1997 Commission meeting had been provided to members. Mr. Long noted that these minutes contained a typographical error on paragraph 1 of page 1, where a reference to "Mr. House" should be replaced with a reference to "Mr. Long". The Commission consented to this correction. There being no further additions or corrections, Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the December 9, 1997 minutes be approved as corrected. 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 noted that there was a correction to be made to the previously approved minutes of September 30, 1997 to indicate that the Commission adjourned at 11:55 a.m. on that date, rather than 11:55 p.m. Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the September 30, 1997 minutes be so corrected. 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 noted that there was a correction to be made to the previously approved minutes of November 25, 1997 to indicate that the Commission approved precinct boundary changes for Daviess County, rather than Wayne County. Mr. Morgan moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that the November 25, 1997 minutes be so corrected. 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.

3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE ENFORCEMENT:

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who reported that there had been no further action since the Commission's last meeting concerning committees with outstanding civil penalties. She noted that these committees had been referred to the Attorney General's office for collection. Ms. Thompson added that funds to satisfy the civil penalty imposed by the Commission against the J. Murray Clark Committee had been received.
The chair recognized Mr. King, who advised the Commission that although questionnaires had been distributed at the Election Administrators' Seminar conducted earlier this month, only one response had been received. A copy of this response is incorporated by reference in these minutes. [Copies of all documents incorporated by reference are available for public inspection and copying in the Election Division office.]
4. VOTING SYSTEM CERTIFICATIONS:

A.STATUS REPORT CONCERNING RECERTIFICATION OF ELECTION SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE PC/BT VOTING SYSTEM:
Mr. King reported that he had spoken with representatives of Business Records Corporation following the December 9, 1997 meeting, and had been advised that they planned to address this issue at the Commission's next meeting, presumably in January. He noted that the Election Division had not yet received a copy of the report from Wyle Laboratories concerning this system.

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

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that staff had received a facsimile transmission from GBS dated December 18, 1997 concerning this voting system. A copy of this transmission is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

He indicated that the transmission contained the response by GBS to the Election Division's request for information concerning the compliance of this system with the voting system standards set forth in Indiana Code 3-11-15. Mr. King stated that he had forwarded this response to Information Services Division as part of ISD's evaluation of this voting system. He indicated that he expected to have a report from ISD at the next Commission meeting concerning this information.



5. LITIGATION UPDATE:

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson, who indicated that Commission members had received a copy of an "Agreed Entry Regarding Pending Motions", dated December 6, 1997, in the Anderson v. Long case. She noted that the entry adds the Small Claims Court judges as parties to this litigation. A copy of the Agreed Entry is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Ms. Robertson also noted that Commission members had received a copy of a filing in the Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change (BAPAC) case, which substituted Mr. Long for Mr. Mallamad as a defendant. A copy of this filing is incorporated by reference in these minutes. She indicated that the Seventh Circuit had not yet issued a ruling in this case.


6. 1997 ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS' SEMINAR:

The chair recognized Ms. Christie, who reported that the Election Division had hosted its largest seminar ever, with more than 385 individuals attending. She thanked the Election Division staff for their work in making the seminar a success. Ms. Tippett thanked the Commission members for making themselves available for the short meeting was conducted during the seminar on December 9. She added that it was great to have Commission members present during the seminar to be introduced to those attending.

The chair stated that he had heard from several clerks who attended that this was the best election administrators' seminar that they had participate in. He added that the only negative comment he heard was that one morning session was very long without a break. Mr. Morgan commented that the room was evenly divided concerning the chair's introduction of Secretary Gilroy, and added that he thought the chair did a fine job, even if he did not agree with all the remarks made during the presentation.


7. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRECINCT BOUNDARIES:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that staff was prepared to provide a review of the statutory framework that applied to the Commission's proceedings in this area. Mr. King remarked that the Indiana law governing precincts provides a role for two entities: the county level body that proposes precinct boundary changes, officially the board of county commissioners, and in Lake County, the combined election and registration board, but with other entities such as the circuit court clerk, the county board of registration, or the county major political party chairs, actually developing the proposals for consideration and action by the commissioners. He added that under Indiana law, no precinct change may be implemented at the county level until consideration and approval of the proposal by the Indiana election commission.

Mr. King noted that under Indiana Code 3-11-1.5-14, any proposed precinct establishment order must be submitted by the county commissioners to the co-directors of the Indiana Election Division. He remarked that IC 3-11-1.5-17 provides for the co-directors, or an employee designated by the co-directors, to examine the proposed precinct changes to determine if the proposal would comply with Indiana Code 3-11-1.5. He indicated that the staff's standards for review under this statute focus on the number of voters within the proposed precinct, and whether any of the proposed precinct's boundaries would cross a prohibited line, such as a congressional district or state legislative district line. Mr. King stated that if, upon the conclusion of this staff review process, the designated employee determines that the precinct proposal would comply with IC 3-11-1.5, then the co-directors are to advise the Commission that the proposal would comply with state law.

He remarked that under IC 3-11-1.5-24, the county implements a proposed precinct change, after being advised that the Commission has approved the proposal, by correcting the appropriate voter registration records and publishing an abbreviated legal notice concerning the changes. Mr. King stated that if the Commission determines that a proposed precinct change would not comply with state law, IC 3-11-1.5-19 requires that the co-directors advise the county specifically how the proposed order would not comply with the state statute. He noted that the law envisions a subsequent submission by the county to make the changes required for the proposal to conform with the state statute.




Mr. King stated that each of the precinct proposals submitted to the Commission today comes with a recommendation from the staff and co-directors for approval by the Commission, based on the determination that the proposed precincts comply with the state statute governing these changes. He indicated that the Commission could either approve the proposals, reject the proposals for specific reasons of noncompliance with the statute, or table the matter pending further information.

The chair recognized Ms. Tippett, who stated that staff had intended to submit proposed precinct changes from three additional counties (Lake County, Tipton County, and White County) to the commissioners with the packets mailed to Commission members, but that these submissions were not completed in time to permit their inclusion in that mailing. She indicated that since Commission members had not had an opportunity to review the material concerning these counties before this meeting, that the proposals could be placed on the agenda at the Commission's next meeting before January 20. The chair agreed with this approach, and noted that at the last meeting, Commission members had indicated their desire to have an opportunity to review the proposed precinct changes before the meeting at which the changes were presented.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King indicated that the final day for Commission action regarding precinct boundary changes would be the first day for the filing of declarations of candidacy, January 21, 1998. The chair stated that he would be willing to call a Commission meeting before that date to consider additional precinct changes. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Ms. Hershberger and Mr. Northern indicated that up to a dozen additional counties beyond Lake, Tipton, and White counties could be expected to submit proposed precinct changes for the next meeting. Ms. Hershberger stated that she had asked all counties considering precinct changes to contact her before January 1, 1998.

The chair recognized Mr. Morgan, who noted that since some precinct proposals were controversial, the earlier he received the packets the better for him to gain an understanding of the issues from staff, co-directors, and interested individuals in those counties. Mr. Northern responded that the demands of the election administrators' seminar had caused some delays, but now that the seminar was passed he thought it would be easier to get this information out to Commission members.

Mr. Long asked that copies of any remonstrances or objections concerning proposed precinct changes be included in the packets mailed to Commission members, so that he could made aware of the nature of any objections.




The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Commission members had received four draft orders in their packets: Order 1997-82, which sets forth the formal approval for the precinct changes in counties that was previously approved by voice vote at the November 25, 1997 Commission meeting; Order 1997-83, which would approve precinct changes in all counties brought Commission today, except for Lake County and LaPorte County; Order 1997-84, which would approve of the proposed precinct changes in Lake County; and Order 1997-85, which would approve the proposed precinct changes in LaPorte County. He added that the Commission might wish to consider amending Order 1997-83 to remove the existing references to White County and Delaware County, which had not been included in the Commissioners' packet.

A. ORDER 1997-82 (PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN ALLEN COUNTY, BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY, CARROLL COUNTY, DAVIESS COUNTY, HAMILTON COUNTY, HENDRICKS COUNTY, JAY COUNTY, JENNINGS COUNTY, JOHNSON COUNTY, MARION COUNTY, SCOTT COUNTY, STEUBEN COUNTY, AND TIPPECANOE COUNTY):

Mr. Long moved that Order 1997-82 be approved as submitted. Mr. Perkins 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 1997-84 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN LAKE COUNTY):

The chair recognized Mr. James L. Wieser, the attorney representing the Lake County Combined Election Board, who stated that he wished to make a brief comment on this order, which he understood would come before the Commission for further action at the Commission's next meeting. Mr. Wieser stated that he was accompanied by the Lake County Democratic Party chairman, Mr. Steven Stiglich, and by Ms. Kathy Heiser, the deputy director of the Combined Election Board. He remarked that it was critical for the proposed precinct changes in Lake County to be made as quickly as possible. He expressed his gratitude to the Commission for scheduling a subsequent meeting in January for that purpose. Mr. Wieser stated that a great deal of work must be done at the Combined Board to prepare for these proposed precinct changes in advance of the declaration of candidacy filing period. Mr. Wieser stated that Lake County had submitted information concerning these proposed precinct changes to the Election Division staff, but did not realize until today that Commission members had not had an opportunity to review this material. He added that all of the proposed precinct changes had been approved by both the Lake County Democratic and Republican party chairmen, and that this approval was entered of record at the Lake County Combined Election Board's meeting yesterday.

Mr. Wieser stated that the Combined Board approved the proposed changes by a unanimous vote. He remarked that although there was a lot of support in Lake County for these changes, he appreciated the Commission's desire to review the proposed precinct boundaries. Mr. Weiser stated that any Commission action prior to the January 21 filing would be appreciated, so that the Combined Election Board could begin its work to prepare for the election. Mr. Weiser expressed his thanks to Mr. Northern, for his willingness to travel to Crown Point and spend twelve hours with the Election Board staff to complete the work concerning the proposed changes.

Mr. Weiser remarked that in addition to making these changes before the long-term precinct freeze which begins November 1, 1998, the Combined Board also felt it was fair to make these proposed changes now so that individuals who wished to be elected precinct committeeman would know where the precinct boundaries would be located when they filed. He thanked the Election Division staff for their cooperation with this effort.

The chair thanked Mr. Weiser for his remarks.

C. ORDER 1997-85 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN LAPORTE COUNTY):

The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who presented information concerning the proposed precinct changes in LaPorte County. She indicated that she had checked each of the proposed changes to determine compliance with the statutes governing the maximum number of voters in the precinct and compliance with the statutes prohibiting precincts from crossing township lines, congressional district lines, and state legislative district lines. She stated that each of the proposed precinct changes complied with these statutes.

The chair asked those individuals who wished to testify concerning this matter to stand. Mr. King administered the oath to these individuals.

The chair recognized Ms. Judy Wilson, the LaPorte County Democratic Party chairman, and a member of the LaPorte County Board of Voter Registration. Ms. Wilson stated that she was appearing today to represent the LaPorte County Democratic Party, and that she believed there were serious problems with the proposed precinct changes in LaPorte County. She remarked that the Democratic Party, the Board of Registration, and Michigan City Common Council had been working collectively on precinct changes.

Ms. Wilson stated that in March 1997 she was advised that precinct changes would be considered, and that she then wrote to the Republican county chairman, the LaPorte County Commissioners, the LaPorte County Council, the LaPorte City Common Council, and the Michigan City Common Council to suggest that these bodies appoint representatives to a committee to work on these changes. She indicated that the Republican County chairman had appointed Mr. Burgwold to the committee, that she had appointed herself as the Democratic representative, that the County Council had designated Mr. Ron Clindaniel, and that the Michigan City Common Council had appointed Mr. Jerry Rinskey (sp?).

Ms. Wilson indicated that Mr. Burgwold had contacted her at the Board of Registration to inform her of his appointment, and to state that he would not be performing his work based on voter registration counts of active voters obtained from the county voter registration office, but would instead rely on the voter counts on documents prepared for the county chairmen at the 1996 general election.

Ms. Wilson stated that approximately ten days before the county commissioners approved the proposed precinct plan for submission to the Indiana Election Commission, Mr. Burgwold appeared unexpectedly in her office with a map showing proposed precincts in Kankakee Township, and mentioned plans to redistrict precincts in Long Beach, the Michiana Shores area, and Springfield Township as well. She testified that when she requested a copy of the proposed changes (other than Kankakee Township, which she had received), Mr. Burgwold told her that she would have to obtain these precinct maps from the County Commissioners. Ms. Wilson remarked that she obtained the maps from the Commissioners after a couple of visits. She added that since she was aware of a precinct boundary error that had occurred in the past since the precinct maps had not been compared with the assessor's maps, she also requested a copy of the legal description of these precincts. Ms. Wilson testified that when she obtained these legal descriptions a couple of days later, she was surprised to learn that changes were being proposed in more precincts than she had been led to believe. She stated that she reviewed the documentation and found it to be seriously flawed.

Ms. Wilson said that she appeared before the Board of County Commissioners on July 22, 1997. She remarked that Mr. Burgwold had stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had been assigned the task of redistricting the precincts. Ms. Wilson indicated that at the Commissioners' meeting, Mr. Clindaniel stated that the proposal had been prepared by Mr. Burgwold while Mr. Clindaniel was on vacation.

Ms. Wilson testified that the information concerning the number of voters to be included in each precinct does not conform with the information concerning the number of active voters in these areas maintained by the county voter registration office. Ms. Wilson said that over 2,000 voter registrations are classified as "inactive" at this time. She stated that since Mr. Burgwold did not use any information derived from a current voter registration list that designates active and inactive voters, and since the board of voter registration's participation was overlooked, she believed the numbers used to determine voters in the proposed precincts are flawed.

Ms. Wilson stated she believed that the maps she had finally acquired from the County Commissioners are inadequate. She testified that the maps were simply line drawings, and not on census block maps, and that as a result it was very difficult to ascertain whether a proposed precinct line crossed a state legislative district line, a township line, or a city or town legislative district line. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Clindaniel had brought a map of LaPorte to her office, and that the map incorrectly delineates the city limit line since the map omits territory annexed to the city in 1993. She added that it also appeared that street names were incorrectly designated on this map due to the placement of the street names on the map. She added that areas of LaPorte, Springfield Township, and Michigan Township were missing from the maps since they were not photocopied off of the original page.

Ms. Wilson stated that the proposed precinct lines cross the town limit lines of Westville and Long Beach, and that proposed precincts in the City of LaPorte cross the township lines of Center, Kankakee, Pleasant, and Scipio Townships. She added that according to her information, she believed a proposed precinct line for Center Pine Lake Precinct would cross the state legislative district line between Indiana House District 9 and House District 20.

Ms. Wilson testified that overall, the proposed redistricting would not improve the equalization of the number of voters per precinct. She said that the numbers of voters in the City of LaPorte would be less equal under the proposed plan than under the current precinct lines, according to the voter registration counts maintained by the Board of Voter Registration on November 31 [sic], 1997. Ms. Wilson added that under the proposed plan the distribution of voters would also be less equal in Cool Spring Township, New Durham Township, Scipio Township, and Springfield Township.

Ms. Wilson stated that redefining precincts in Cool Spring Township, Scipio Township, and Springfield Township would also make changes in the county commissioner election districts since the ordinance establishing the county commissioner districts defines the county commissioner districts according to the names of the precincts. She stated that redrawing these precinct lines would defy a federal judge's court order that directs the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners not to redraw their election district lines until after the next census. She added that this order was the result of litigation alleging that the county commissioners had redistricted their election districts to disadvantage a political party.

Ms. Wilson remarked that she finds no justifiable reason for the majority of the proposed precinct changes, and that the proposal would unnecessarily disadvantage too many voters by requiring them to change their polling location. She stated that even though the county board of voter registration will send these voters acknowledgement cards, too many voters will show up at the wrong polling place, become discouraged, and not vote, or will show up at the wrong polling place too late in the day to reach the correct polling place.

Ms. Wilson testified that many voters will be confused by being placed in precincts with different names, such as voters who are moved from LaPorte 4-2 to LaPorte 4-1, and vice versa. She added that the proposed precinct would cross township lines and increase the potential for confusion at the polls due to the need for additional ballot variations being used within the precinct. Ms. Wilson stated that this also increases the possibility that a voter will be given the wrong ballot, since a separate poll list would be required in the precinct for each township. She said that the maintenance of two separate poll lists also increases the potential for an eligible voter to be turned away if the precinct workers would refer to the wrong poll list.

Ms. Wilson concluded by stating that, for all of the reasons discussed above, she urged the Election Commission to reconsider the proposal for precinct changes, and thanked the Commission for its attention.

The chair recognized Dr. Ed Mueller, the LaPorte County Republican Party chairman. Dr. Mueller stated that Mrs. Wilson had made a nice presentation, but that the Commission needed to begin its consideration of this proposal earlier than where Mrs. Wilson started. Dr. Mueller stated that Ms. Wilson had neglected to tell the Commission that precinct changes were made in 1992 following the 1990 decennial census due to ordinances passed by the Common Council of the City of LaPorte and the Common Council of Michigan City that changed city ward boundaries to reflect the census counts. Dr. Mueller stated that these city ordinances were forwarded to the LaPorte County Board of County Commissioners in 1993 for precinct changes, but were never acted upon. He remarked that since that time, the potential precinct problems discussed by Mrs. Wilson do exist since voters live in a precinct that is not in the voters' ward, such as in LaPorte City Precinct 3-3, which is no longer in the third ward of the City of LaPorte, but is instead in the fifth ward. Dr. Mueller stated that at the last city election, a city council member was elected by some voters who do not reside within that member's ward, and that the same situation exists in other precincts within the City of LaPorte.

Dr. Mueller indicated that the proposed changes would actually bring the precincts and wards into correlation and straighten out these existing problems. He stated that the current situation has been a mess since 1992, and that there are also similar situations in Michigan City where a voter is voting within a precinct that is not within the correct city council ward. He stated that since the Michigan City Common Council did not act with regard to any of these changes, Michigan City is not involved with regard to any of these changes, but that since the LaPorte City Common Council did make changes they will have the same problems there as before. Dr. Mueller stated that he knew that in the last city election there were mistakes made, and voters were given the wrong ballot in some cases. He added that if the voter discovered the mistake after casting the ballot, it was too late for the voter to correct the error.

Dr. Mueller stated that he was not aware that there was any political advantage to either party with regard to the proposed precinct changes, and that his only concern was trying to straighten out the mess that had existed since 1992. He remarked that if the mess did not get straightened out now, he didn't know when it would be, except after 2000, which would mean that the next city election in 1999 would have the same problems.

The chair recognized Mr. Burgwold, who stated that he was a member of the LaPorte County Council and taught political science at Purdue's North Central campus. He remarked that he was one of those selected to do the precinct redistricting work, and that this was the third time he had been asked by the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners to be involved in precinct redistricting. He stated that to his knowledge only one other person had been appointed to be involved in this project, namely Mr. Clindaniel, who had been appointed by the Democratic Party County chairman. Mr. Burgwold stated that although there was some talk of appointing a third person, it was decided to have only one Democrat and one Republican involved, so that if there was agreement a proposed precinct change could proceed. He added that he and Mr. Clindaniel had agreed to "check their partisan beliefs at the door" in working on this project, and that they did so. Mr. Burgwold said that he and Mr. Clindaniel had worked well together and agreed on every change before it was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. He added that, with one possible exception, all of the proposed precinct changes had bipartisan support. He remarked that the Board of County Commissioners had approved the proposed changes unanimously, despite the fact that the Commissioners are politically split.

Mr. Burgwold stated that Ms. Wilson had voiced the opinion that no changes at all be made in LaPorte County's precincts until after the next decennial census in 2000. He noted that much of the proposed precinct work is preparatory for the next decennial census. He added that, given the problems with existing precincts, waiting to make precinct changes would compound those problems. Mr. Burgwold noted that state law now required that no more than 1,200 registered voters be included in any precinct in these municipalities, or that no more than 1,400 voters be included in a precinct consisting of an entire township. He indicated that he had worked to conform to these numerical guidelines in making the proposed precinct changes fair, legal, and non-political.

Mr. Burgwold stated that he was sure that if Mr. Clindaniel could be present he would testify that their cooperation on this project had been very good, notwithstanding their different political faiths. He noted that he had received cooperation from both county chairmen during his previous work on precinct boundaries, and that he was upset that on this occasion a county chairman had disagreed with the precinct recommendations. Mr. Burgwold indicated that he was not aware of this opposition until after he and Mr. Clindaniel had presented their recommendations to the County Commissioners.

Mr. Burgwold noted that the proposed precinct changes had not only received the unanimous vote of the Board of County Commissioners, but had received technical approval from Ms. Hershberger. He stated that he had visited Ms. Hershberger recently and reviewed the changes precinct by precinct.

Mr. Burgwold responded to the charge that the precinct maps submitted to the Election Commission were not census block maps by stating that the Commission had in fact received census block maps showing the proposed precincts. He indicated that the county chairs had received smaller precinct maps as a courtesy to convey a general idea of what the new precincts would look like.

Mr. Burgwold addressed the question of precincts that cross township lines. He stated that in only two instances did precincts cross township lines, but these instances were in small, unpopulated areas, where crossing a township line is permitted under Indiana law. He remarked that precinct lines following township lines in these cases would result in precincts without any voters, and that there was no reason to do so.

Mr. Burgwold stated that both he and Mr. Clindaniel had appeared before the LaPorte and Michigan City city councils. He remarked that the LaPorte city council was very cooperative, since they had an extreme problem in the city where, as a result of the last reapportionment of the city council wards without any subsequent precinct changes, precincts crossed into other wards. He indicated that the proposed precinct changes were made in part to address this problem, and that if the proposed precinct changes were not approved after the LaPorte City Council had acted in good faith to redraw their ward lines to meet all the conditions that the courts have set down concerning compactness and "one man, one vote", then the same mess will occur that the precinct changes tried to alleviate.

Mr. Burgwold indicated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had also appeared before the city council of Michigan City to ask for their cooperation with the precinct changes. He stated that Michigan City had problems with their ward lines as well with regard to the ward lines resulting in the dilution of the influence of the city's large minority population. Mr. Burgwold remarked that the Michigan City wards had problems regarding compactness and "one man, one vote." He stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had assisted the Michigan City city council by preparing four separate plans, each of which reduced the overall variation between the wards to less than 1%. He indicated that the Michigan City council had decided not to be a part of this process, but not because Mr. Burgwold and Mr. Clindaniel did not come to the council.

Mr. Burgwold stated that with regard to the precinct lines crossing county commissioner districts, he noted that under Indiana law county commissioner districts are created for purpose of residency, not representation since all commissioners in the county run at large. He indicated that as a result, precinct lines could cross county commissioner district lines without being in violation of Indiana law. He stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel were aware of the freeze of county commissioner districts imposed by the federal court and took it into account, but that they were not suggesting any change in county commissioner districts.

Mr. Burgwold noted that the county commissioners have the authority not only to redraw precinct lines subject to Election Commission approval, but also to redistrict county council lines. He indicated that he and Mr. Clindaniel have submitted a proposed change in county council district lines to the county commissioners that would reflect these proposed precinct changes. He stated that these proposed county council lines would meet the court's compactness rules, and comply with "one man, one vote" by reducing the overall deviation from 5% to 2%.

Mr. Burgwold stated that a cutoff date was necessary in preparing this precinct plan. He indicated that he had been told initially by the county board of registration that current data was required. He noted that if they had done so, the figures would have been challenged two weeks later since the figure did not reflect subsequent voter registration activity. He indicated that he and Mr. Clindaniel used the voter registration figures, which included both active and inactive voters, but which appear on the pollbook regardless. Mr. Burgwold said that he and Mr. Clindaniel used the figures from 1994 and 1996, with the figures then extrapolated to as to how much of an increase had occurred, precinct by precinct. Mr. Burgwold displayed his records to the Commission depicting the precinct by precinct computations that were employed. This information is incorporated by reference in these minutes. He indicated that a running figure was computed for each precinct included in the proposal. Mr. Burgwold stated that a lot of work went into these computations, and these figures were not "drawn out of the sky." He indicated that as a result, he and Mr. Clindaniel would appreciate the Commission's favorable vote regarding these proposed changes.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that Mr. Clindaniel had been appointed to work on the precinct change project by Ms. Wilson, and that he had seen the letter from Ms. Wilson appointing him. Mr. Burgwold stated that Mr. Clindaniel continued in that capacity and was not removed from that position, even though his county chairman disagreed with him regarding whether any changes should be made. In response to an additional question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold stated that he and Mr. Clindaniel had gone to the city councils of LaPorte and Michigan City to ask for their cooperation regarding the precinct changes. He added that they had received cooperation from the City of LaPorte, but not from the City of Michigan City.

In response to a question from Mr. Long concerning his reliance on three years of voter history rather than the county voter registration records concerning the number of active voters in the precinct, Mr. Burgwold responded that he and Mr. Clindaniel had worked to extrapolate the number of voters that the precinct could hold at the next election. He indicated that they did not want to create a precinct with a voter population near the limit that would then have more than 1,200 voters at the next election. Mr. Long then inquired what the process was for Mr. Burgwold's and Mr. Clindaniel's extrapolation. Mr. Burgwold responded that they had computed the increase in voter population in the precinct during the two year period from 1994 to 1996. He indicated that 1996 was both the last election year and a presidential election year, which would be a good barometer, since in those years, historically, the most people register and turn out to vote. He added that they had then projected what the number of voters in the precinct would bein 1998, and then rounded it. Mr. Burgwold stated that he had provided these computations to Ms. Hershberger.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that in the two instances in which precincts lines crossed township lines, the precinct lines were drawn to follow the municipal boundary of the City of LaPorte.

In response to a question from Mr. Long concerning the allegation that a proposed precinct boundary line crossed a state legislative district line, Mr. Burgwold responded that the proposed change in precinct boundary lines was made so that crossing a state legislative district line would not occur. He added that in Center Township, the current precinct boundary line in the Pine Lake area crosses a state legislative district line. He indicated that the proposed precinct boundary line in that area would follow the state legislative district boundary, and that if the proposed line did cross a state legislative district line, this would have shown up on the Election Division's computer when staff checked the proposed boundary.

Mr. Long stated that the state legislative district boundaries in his area are defined by precinct numbers in state statute (Title 2 of the Indiana Code). In response to Mr. Long's question, Mr. Burgwold stated that, to his knowledge, the state legislative districts in LaPorte County were defined by census divisions in most cases. Mr. Long stated that he thought that most state legislative districts were defined in the state statutes by county, township, and precinct numbers, and that if this were the case, he did not see how an existing state legislative district line could be crossed by an existing precinct. Mr. Long requested that Mr. Burgwold identify the state legislative districts involved. Mr. Burgwold referred the Commission to the precinct summary statement submitted for Center Township Precinct 1, and indicated that the reason given for the proposed precinct change was due to the growth of population in Center Township and to correct a boundary error in the Pine Lake area. He added that the precinct summary statement for Center Township Pine Lake indicated that the proposed reason for the precinct change was to correct an error in the precinct boundary line with relation to Indiana House District 20. Mr. Burgwold stated that maps and Commission orders on file in LaPorte County depict a smaller precinct than the precinct used by the state in drawing House District 20. He indicated that with this change, the precinct will conform with that House District.

Mr. Long inquired whether the previous boundary for Pine Lake Center Township Precinct had a map on file with the County Election Board that was different than a map filed with the state. Mr. Burgwold responded that the map on file with the county was different than the precinct boundary on the map used by the state legislature to draw house district lines. In response to a question from Mr. Long regarding how this could be determined, Mr. Burgwold indicated that the census block lines included in the county's map of the Pine Lake precinct differed from the census blocks included in the state's map of that precinct.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson indicated that Mr. Clindaniel was president of the LaPorte County Council, and that she had requested his participation in this precinct redistricting work as president of the County Council, or to appoint another council representative to do so. In response to an additional question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson stated that she was familiar with the letter referred to by Mr. Burgwold, and provided a copy of her August 5, 1997 letter to Commission members. This letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes. Mr. Burgwold stated that the letter he was familiar with included a paragraph requesting county council participation since precinct changes might also result in changes in the county council districts.

At the request of Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold examined the letter submitted by Ms. Wilson and stated that the letter he saw did not have the letterhead included on Ms. Wilson's copy. He indicated that the letter submitted by Ms. Wilson was close to the letter that he had seen, but that the letter he had seen had a letterhead from the LaPorte County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Mr. Long inquired whether Mr. Burgwold had seen the letter addressed to Mr. Edward Mueller, chairman of the LaPorte County Republican Party, Mr. Clay Turner, president of the LaPorte County Board of County Commissioners, and Ms. Evelyn Baker, chair of the Michigan City common council, asking them to serve on this precinct committee. Mr. Burgwold responded that he did not see a copy of any letter to Ms. Baker, although he spoke personally to her about input on the precinct committee. He stated that he may have seen a letter addressed to Mr. Turner, but was not aware of seeing a letter addressed to Dr. Mueller.

Mr. Burgwold displayed a map to Commission members of the Center Township precincts, and indicated that the precinct map on file in the Commissioners' office did not show the Pine Lake precinct line extended out to the line shown as the state legislative boundary. He indicated that the Pine Lake precinct line followed Holton Road over to Country Club Drive, then around and up. Mr. Burgwold stated that one portion of the Pine Lake precinct was left out of the precinct according to the maps on file with the County Commissioners. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that Pine Lake Precinct was within Center Township, but that the area enclosed within this precinct was not as large as the area included within this precinct during the reapportionment that created House District 20.

Mr. Long noted that House District 20 was described in Indiana Code 2-1-6-23 as including all of "Pine Lake Precinct." Mr. Burgwold responded that this was correct, but that the precinct now does not have same boundaries, and is not as large as it was during the legislative reapportionment. He added that as a result, the map on file with the County Commissioners is in error. Mr. Burgwold then displayed a census map depicting the proposed changes in Pine Lake Precinct and noted that this map indicates that the western boundary of Pine Lake precinct has been corrected to extend to County Road 400 West, which is the boundary of the precinct used during the reapportionment.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Burgwold indicated that currently Pine Lake Precinct was not entirely within one Indiana house district, but that the proposal would correct this error by placing the precinct entirely within the same house district. He added that this correction had been noted on the summary sheet as the reason for this precinct boundary change. In response to an additional question from the chair, Mr. Burgwold indicated that no house district was changed as a result of this proposed precinct change, and that any proposal that would have done so would have been caught on the Election Division's computer.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold indicated that in 1990, the excluded area bordered by Holton Road was in Center Precinct 1, and that this area is in another house district. Mr. Long stated that the indicated area has been placed into Pine Lake Precinct. Mr. Burgwold stated that this was correct, and was to accord with the legislative district reapportionment. Mr. Long stated that it appears that after the last reapportionment, the area outside of the current Pine Lake Precinct is not in House District 20. Mr. Burgwold stated that this problem had been brought to the attention of the county clerk at that time, but was disregarded.

Mr. Long asked if he was not correct that the proposal was taking area from one house district and placing it in another house district. Mr. Burgwold responded that this was not correct. Mr. Long asked if the new area outside of the existing Pine Lake Precinct was included in House District 20. Mr. Burgwold responded that the boundary of the Pine Lake Precinct used in the 1990 census figures and used in the 1991 legislative reapportionment extended all the way out to County Road 400 West. Mr. Long asked what census blocks were included in the area that was proposed to be added to Pine Lake Precinct. Mr. Burgwold stated that census block 204 was included.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King stated that he was not familiar with the legislative boundaries concerning this particular precinct. However, he noted that the state statute in Indiana Code Title 2 which established the state senate and state house districts in most cases describes the districts by precincts and in a few cases by both precincts and census tracts. Mr. King stated that the house redistricting statute contains a provision indicating that the precincts referred to in the redistricting statute are the precincts as they existed on June 14, 1991, when the general assembly enacted this statute. He indicated that as a result, there was no action that the Election Commission or a county could take that would result in overriding this state statute to effect a legal alteration of the state legislative district lines. Mr. King remarked, however, that since 1991, counties may have proposed, and the Commission may have approved, changes in precinct boundaries that did not conform with the 1991 state legislative district lines, so that as a result some voters within a precinct were residents of one state legislative districts, while other voters in the same precinct were residents of another state legislative district.

Mr. Burgwold inquired whether the Election Division's computers would have indicated if the proposed Pine Lake precinct would be splitting a state legislative district in the manner described by Mr. King. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King indicated that if the map presented to the Commissioners was dated "1990", then the precincts depicted on this map would have the boundaries used in the 1991 reapportionment, unless a change had been made in the precinct lines between the date on the map and June 14, 1991. Mr. Burgwold indicated that the "census precinct" would have been used in the 1991 reapportionment.

Mr. Long stated that he understood that, speaking hypothetically, and not of Pine Lake in particular, that if a part of a precinct in one legislative district were added to a precinct in another legislative district, the legislative boundary would not change, but as a result, some voters within the redefined precinct would be entitled to receive a different set of legislative ballots than other voters within the same precinct. Mr. King responded that this was correct, and that if a precinct proposal was presented that would achieve this result, the proposal would be contrary to state statute. Mr. Burgwold stated that this could be the result if the Pine Lake precinct boundary was left as it is now.

Mr. Burgwold asked Ms. Hershberger if he was not correct in saying that if the proposed change in Pine Lake Precinct would have crossed a state legislative district line, this result would have shown up on her computer, and that in fact the computer indicated that the proposed precinct boundary was in sync with what the state legislature had intended. Ms. Hershberger responded that this was correct.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Burgwold stated that if the proposed precinct changes are approved, the voters in these precincts will be voting for the state legislative candidates that the General Assembly intended the voters to be able to vote for. Mr. Long inquired whether these voters would be voting in the same state legislative district as they did in 1996. Mr. Burgwold responded that the voters would be voting in the legislative districts in accordance with the lines drawn by the state legislature after the 1990 census.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Burgwold indicated that he had assisted the county with precinct redistricting in 1985 and in 1987 prior to the 1990 census. He added that between those years, the state law governing the maximum number of voters in each precinct had changed.

The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who stated that she had reviewed the precinct boundary proposals from LaPorte County and that she determined, to the best of her ability, that the proposed precincts did not cross any state legislative district lines. She added that she would be willing to go through her work in detail with the Commission if they wished her to do so. In response to a question from the chair, she indicated that Mr. Northern had not been present in the office the day she reviewed these boundaries.

In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Robertson indicated that she had reviewed some questions regarding these proposed precinct changes with Ms. Hershberger, and that the changes appeared to conform with state statute. She noted that they had specifically reviewed a case where a precinct line would cross a township line, but since the area had no population, state law would permit this.

Mr. Long noted that the summary statement prepared for LaPorte City Precinct Ward 1 Precinct 4 did not indicate that the precinct's boundary line would split or divide the indicated lines, and that these questions remained unanswered. Mr. Burgwold stated that he could supply this information now to the Commission. Mr. Long added that this information appeared to have been supplied on all the other precinct summary statements.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the following items would be included in the record of this cause, with the consent of Commission members: (1) the summary statement for each precinct submitted with this order, along with a one page blue map depicting these precincts, and a one page list of all proposed precinct changes; (2) one page letters from Ms. Judy Wilson to Ms. Evelyn D. Baker, chairman of the Michigan City Common Council, to Mr. Ron Clindaniel, chairman of the LaPorte County Council, to Mr. Clay Turner, president of the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners, and to Dr. Edwin C. Mueller, LaPorte County Republican Party chairman, all dated April 4, 1997; (3) a five page letter, plus attachments, from Ms. Wilson to the members of the Election Commission, dated August 5, 1997; and (4) a letter to Ms. Hershberger from Mr. Burgwold, dated December 12, 1997. Commission members consented to the inclusion of this material in the record.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson indicated that the attachments with her letter did not include a copy of the current ordinance establishing county commissioner districts and the federal court order concerning those districts. Mr. Burgwold responded that the county commissioners districts would not be changed by the precinct boundary changes, and could not be changed before 2001 under the federal court order. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Wilson indicated that she believed this information was summarized in the material she had presented to the Commission today.

In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Burgwold indicated that Mr. Clindaniel had not sent a letter to the Commission concerning these proposed changes. Mr. Burgwold said he did not know why Mr. Clindaniel had not submitted a letter, but that if Mr. Clindaniel had not endorsed these precinct changes, the changes would not have been submitted. Mr. Morgan said he understood that sometimes people could not attend the Commission's meeting, but he surprised that a letter had not been submitted since a two-member group had performed this work.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Burgwold stated that the Board of County Commissioners, which was politically divided, had voted unanimously to approve the proposed precinct changes, but that the County Election Board was not required by statute to do so. Mr. Burgwold stated that he believed the county election board members had been furnished with a copy of the proposed precinct changes, but that they were not required by state law to be furnished with these copies.

There being no further testimony or discussion, the chair closed the hearing on this matter. In response to a question from the chair, Ms. Hershberger stated that the staff's recommendation was that the Commission approve the proposed precinct changes for LaPorte County since the precincts would meet the requirements set forth in state law at Indiana Code 3-11-1.5.

The chair moved that Order 1997-85 be approved as presented. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Long stated that he would abstain on this motion at this time for two reasons: (1) the Commission would be conducting another meeting concerning precinct changes before the statutory deadlines, and that he remained uncomfortable concerning the legislative district line. He added that he would like to have input from the leadership of each party in the House, as well as the representatives from the affected districts; and (2) he was concerned with the impact of the proposed precinct order with regard to the federal court order concerning county commissioner districts, and did not wish to involve himself, or the Commission, in additional litigation.

Mr. Long added that he was also concerned that the Democratic and Republican party county chairs had a dispute regarding precinct alignment within their county, and noted that there was an ongoing dispute regarding the Democratic Party chair's appointment of an individual to work on the precinct boundaries. He noted that even though the county chairs do not have a role under the precinct boundary statute, the Commission's policy had been to involve the chairs in its consideration of proposed changes. Mr. Long concluded by stating that if the party positions were reversed, his view would be the same.

Mr. Morgan stated that he concurred with Mr. Long's statement, and remarked that he hoped there could be additional work done on this proposal before the Commission's next scheduled meeting, which could be held before the statutory deadline of January 21, 1998. He indicated that he hoped action could be taken on this matter before the deadline, but that he was not prepared to do so today.

The chair stated that since the apparent vote on this motion would be two-to-two, he was withdrawing his previous motion, and moved to table this matter until the next meeting of the Commission when it would be called again for further discussion and action. Mr. Long seconded the motion.

Mr. Burgwold interjected to ask what would be the effect of an abstention by Mr. Long and Mr. Morgan on the Commission's vote. The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the Commission's statute explicitly requires three affirmative votes for the Commission to take any official action. The chair also requested that Mr. Burgwold either arrange for Mr. Clindaniel to attend the next Commission meeting or provide written information concerning 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. The chair asked staff to notify the interested parties in LaPorte County when the date of the next Commission is set, and stated that he anticipated that this meeting would be conducted a week or so before the statutory deadline.

The chair then moved to table the Lake County precinct boundary changes included in Order 1997-84 until the next meeting of the Commission when it would be called again for further discussion and action. Mr. Long seconded the motion.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that two documents had been received concerning this matter that would be included in the Commission record with consent of the members, namely: (1) a letter to Mr. Northern, dated December 22, 1997, from Mr. Francisco Aguilar, President, and Mr. Luis Ibarra, Vice-President, of Union Benefica Mexicana; and (2) a letter to Mr. Northern, dated December 23, 1997, from Ms. Rose Parker, 6th District Councilwoman, Gary, and the Honorable Earl Harris, State Representative, 2nd District. Commission members consented to the inclusion of this material in the record. Staff also distributed copies of a large packet of material concerning the Lake County changes for inclusion in the record of the next Commission meeting.

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.

D. ORDER 1997-83 (PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES IN CLARK COUNTY, DEARBORN COUNTY, FLOYD COUNTY, MORGAN COUNTY, AND SHELBY COUNTY):


The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who stated that the proposed precinct changes in Clark County were largely the result of annexations. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Ms. Hershberger stated that no objections had been received to these changes.

The chair noted that Delaware County, Jay County, Tipton County, Wabash County, and White County would be discussed at the next meeting. By consent of the Commission, Order 1997-83 was amended to remove references to these counties.

The chair recognized Ms. Hershberger, who stated that the staff had not received any objections concerning proposed precinct changes in Dearborn County, Floyd County, Morgan County, or Shelby County. The following documents: (1) a letter from Mr. Warren V. Nash, Floyd County Democratic chairman, dated November 18, 1997; (2) a letter from Mr. Paul D. Hutzleman, Floyd County chairman, dated November 13, 1997; (3) the minutes of the December 15, 1997 meeting of the Morgan County election board; and (4) a letter to Ms. Hershberger from Ms. Catherine A. Laird, Shelby County Circuit Court Clerk, dated December 19, 1997, are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

The chair moved that Order 1997-83 be approved as amended. Mr. Perkins 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.


8. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO FLOYD COUNTY NVRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

The chair recognized Mr. Northern, who stated that staff had received a request from the Floyd County prosecuting attorney's office concerning the proposed amendment to the Floyd County NVRA implementation plan to make that office a "full service voter registration agency."

Mr. Northern indicated that he had been advised of the Floyd County Circuit Court Clerk's support for this proposal, and that a letter dated December 19, 1997 from Mr. Stanley O. Faith, Floyd County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ms. Kimberly E. Hearn, had been received by staff. This letter, addressed to Mr. Northern, is incorporated by reference into these minutes.

Mr. Long moved that the proposed amendment to the Floyd County NVRA implementation plan be approved. Mr. Perkins 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.


9. OTHER BUSINESS:

A.ACCESS INDIANA/ELECTION DIVISION HOMEPAGE:

The chair recognized Mr. Perkins, who stated that he had the opportunity to visit the Election Division web site on the Internet, and remarked that the staff had done an excellent job in designing that web site. He indicated that the site was very user friendly, and that he was able to obtain this meeting's agenda from the web site. Mr. Perkins encouraged other members of the Commission to visit the web site if they have not already. Ms. Tippett responded that Mr. Northern and Mr. King had worked diligently to get this material out on the Net, and that she was sure that they appreciated his comments. Mr. Long stated that he also had access to the Net and would visit this web site.


B.STATE CONVENTION DELEGATE CERTIFICATION:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that Commission members had been provided with a document captioned "Republican State Convention Delegates 1998", which was filed with the Election Division on December 15, 1997. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.


C.ORDER 1997-86: DISTRIBUTION OF FORMS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Commission members had been provided with a copy of this draft order, which specifies that certain forms approved by the Commission, but used exclusively by Election Division staff, certain designated counties, or the major political parties, are not required to be distributed to all county election offices and all county voter registration offices.

Mr. King also provided Commission members with copies of the following documents concerning election forms: (1) one page letters dated December 16, 1997 from Mr. King and Ms. Robertson to Mr. Joe Andrew, Mr. Michael McDaniel, and Mr. Rob Shuford, state chairs of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties respectively, referring to enclosed election forms provided to the parties with those letters; (2) a certification signed by Mr. King and Ms. Robertson on December 10, 1997 indicating that the form distributions to the Commission on Public Records as required under Orders 1997-77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 had been completed as directed by the Commission; (3) a certification signed by Mr. King and Ms. Robertson on December 16, 1997 indicating that the form distributions to county election offices and county voter registration offices required under Orders 1997-66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 86 had been completed as directed by the Commission; (4) a memorandum from Michael A. Fiwek, Deputy State Examiner, State Board of Accounts, dated December 8, 1997, to Mr. King and Ms. Robertson, indicating that State Form 48648 (VRG-24) had been approved by the State Board of Accounts.

Mr. Long moved that Order 1997-86 be approved as submitted. Mr. Morgan 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.


D. CANDIDATE FORMS APPROVED FOR USE BY MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the Election Division had received a request from the Marion County Election Board for the Commission to authorize the use of a variation on the CAN-2 (Declaration of Candidacy for Primary Election); CAN-37 (Declaration of Candidacy for State Convention Delegate); and CAN-38 (Declaration of Candidate for Precinct Committeeman). He indicated that Ms. Wendy Davis from the Marion County Election Board and Mr. Jim Bredensteiner were present to request Commission approval for these variations from the previously approved forms for use in Marion County only. Copies of the proposed forms were provided to Commission members and are incorporated by reference in these minutes.
The chair recognized Ms. Davis, who stated that during the past, the Marion County Election Board had produced all of its declaration of candidacy forms in triplicate, with the original copy remaining in the Election Board office, one copy going to the candidate, and the remaining copy going to the county headquarters of the candidate's party. She noted that the forms prescribed by the Commission contained a notarization on the back of the form, which would require separate execution of the notarization on each of the three copies of the forms. Ms. Davis requested that Marion County be authorized to move the notarization language to the front of the form, with the campaign finance information still being printed on the back of the CAN-2 form.
Ms. Davis noted that the Marion County Election Board also requested authorization to use separate forms for Democratic and Republican party candidates for precinct committeeman and state convention delegate, and indicated that in a county with more than 900 precincts, this variation would expedite the processing of these forms.
The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that he and Ms. Robertson had reviewed the proposed forms, and found that except for the relocation of this language, all of the proposed forms complied with state statutes. He added that they were of the opinion that Commission action was required under IC 3-5-4-8 for the form variations to be used in Marion County.
The chair moved that the CAN-2, CAN-37, and CAN-38 forms be approved for use in Marion County. 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.

E. COMMISSION MEETING DATES:

The chair recognized Ms. Christie, who noted that there was a possibility that the Commission would be required to meet no later than Thursday, March 12, 1998 to rule on any questioned primary declarations of candidacy.

After further discussion, Commission members decided that the next Commission meeting would be conducted on January 13, 1998, at 1:30 p.m., at a location in the Government Center South to be announced.



10. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, 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 3:21 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,


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


APPROVED:



__________________________
Dudley Cruea,
Chairman