Pabey v. Pastrick

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana reviewed an election contest arising from the 2003 Democratic primary for mayor of East Chicago, Indiana. The trial court found pervasive misconduct involving absentee voting but denied relief because it concluded the proven invalid votes did not make it impossible to determine the winning candidate. The Supreme Court addressed appellate jurisdiction, statutory timing requirements, and the meaning of the deliberate-actions ground for contesting an election.

Holdings

1. Failure to include a transcript does not require dismissal where the appellant accepts the trial court's findings and argues that those findings do not support the judgment; incompleteness of the appellate record is not an appropriate basis for dismissal with prejudice.
2. Extraordinary or unusual circumstances do not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction when the hearing occurs outside the statutory twenty-day period, provided the contestor was diligent and the hearing was held as soon as practicable.
3. A challenger seeking a special election under the deliberate-actions ground must conclusively demonstrate: (1) a deliberate act or series of actions by persons who knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct would make it impossible to determine which candidate received the most legal votes; and (2) that the conduct so infected the election process as to profoundly undermine the election's integrity and the trustworthiness of its outcome.
4. The undisputed findings of a widespread and pervasive pattern of deliberate conduct that perverted the absentee-voting process and compromised the integrity and results of the election established the statutory deliberate-actions ground and required a special election.
5. The Election Contest Statute authorizes a court to order a special election when deliberate acts or a series of actions make it impossible to determine which candidate received the highest number of votes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed because Pabey failed to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction despite the election-contest hearing occurring outside the statutory twenty-day period.
3. What standard and methodology govern an election contest under Indiana Code section 3-12-8-2(5), the deliberate-actions ground.
4. Whether pervasive and deliberate misconduct that substantially undermines the reliability and trustworthiness of election results authorizes a special election without proof that invalid votes mathematically exceeded the margin of victory.
5. Whether a special election is an available remedy under the Election Contest Statute for the deliberate-actions ground.
6. Whether the trial court erred in determining that certain absentee votes were invalid.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded