1. Letter to the Indiana Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Subject: Ethics Complaint: Potential Candidate Interference and Unconstitutional Censorship by [Commissioner Name]
Statement of Facts:
I am informally reporting [Name], [Title], for a violation of their official duties and the Indiana Election Code. The respondent is using their official position to engage in what could be candidate interference by threatening candidates with a Class A misdemeanor—carrying a one-year jail sentence—under IC § 3-9-3-2.5 for displaying standard political signs on private property.
I am informally reporting [Name], [Title], for a violation of their official duties and the Indiana Election Code. The respondent is using their official position to engage in what could be candidate interference by threatening candidates with a Class A misdemeanor—carrying a one-year jail sentence—under IC § 3-9-3-2.5 for displaying standard political signs on private property.
Legal Argument:
The respondent’s actions represent an ethical breach by enforcing a void statute through the threat of incarceration. Under IC 3-14-3-18, communicating a threat to a candidate with the intent to influence their conduct could be a Level 6 felony. By threatening jail to force the removal of signs like "Vote for Smith," the respondent is engaging in candidate interference.
The respondent’s actions represent an ethical breach by enforcing a void statute through the threat of incarceration. Under IC 3-14-3-18, communicating a threat to a candidate with the intent to influence their conduct could be a Level 6 felony. By threatening jail to force the removal of signs like "Vote for Smith," the respondent is engaging in candidate interference.
Furthermore, in Price v. State (622 N.E.2d 954), the Indiana Supreme Court held that political speech is a core constitutional value that the state may not materially burden. In Stewart v. Taylor (953 F. Supp. 1047), the court struck down Indiana’s previous disclaimer laws as unconstitutional. Per Talley v. California and NIFLA v. Becerra, government-mandated disclaimers that co-opt a speaker’s message are unconstitutional censorship.
2. Letter to the Indiana Election Commission
To: Indiana Election Commission
Address: 302 W. Washington Street, Room E-204, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Address: 302 W. Washington Street, Room E-204, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Subject: Grievance: Potential Violation of IC 3-14-3-18 and Unconstitutional Censorship
Dear Members of the Commission:
This grievance is filed against [Name] for utilizing IC § 3-9-3-2.5 as a tool of criminal intimidation. The respondent has issued threats of jail time to candidates for signage lacking disclaimers.
This grievance is filed against [Name] for utilizing IC § 3-9-3-2.5 as a tool of criminal intimidation. The respondent has issued threats of jail time to candidates for signage lacking disclaimers.
This conduct could be a Level 6 felony under IC 3-14-3-18, which prohibits threatening a candidate to influence their actions. By using the threat of a Class A misdemeanor to suppress signs, the respondent is engaging in unconstitutional censorship. As established in Price v. State and Stewart v. Taylor, the state cannot materially burden core political speech. Furthermore, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Moody v. NetChoice affirm that the government may not co-opt a private party's expressive choices. Such conduct fails the requirement for uniform administration of election law under IC § 3-6-4.1-14.
3. Grievance to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
Subject: Grievance Against Attorney [Name]: Potential Violation of RPC 3.4(h) and 4.1
Description of Conduct:
I am informally reporting [Name] for a potential violation of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(h), which prohibits threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil or political matter.
I am informally reporting [Name] for a potential violation of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(h), which prohibits threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil or political matter.
As an Election Commissioner, the respondent is threatening candidates with jail for political signs under IC § 3-9-3-2.5. This enforcement path was held unconstitutional in Stewart v. Taylor and restricted by Price v. State. By misrepresenting the legality of these signs to laypeople, the respondent’s conduct could also violate RPC 4.1. Per Talley v. California and NIFLA v. Becerra, these disclaimer requirements are unconstitutional censorship. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court reiterated that the state cannot co-opt an individual’s voice. Using the threat of a one-year jail sentence to suppress "Vote for Smith" signs is a grave violation of the respondent's professional oath and the administration of justice.
Would you like to include the official case citations as a formal "Table of Authorities" attachment to make these filings look more professional?
Here are the updated drafts with your specific adjustments. The language is now informal, uses the "could be a Level 6" qualifier, and frames the conduct as a respondent who "may be" engaging in these violations.
1. Letter to the Indiana Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Subject: Ethics Complaint: Potential Candidate Interference and Unconstitutional Censorship by [Commissioner Name]
Statement of Facts:
I am informally reporting [Name], [Title], for a violation of their official duties and the Indiana Election Code. The respondent may be engaging in candidate interference by using their official position to threaten candidates with a Class A misdemeanor—carrying a one-year jail sentence—under IC § 3-9-3-2.5 for displaying standard political signs on private property.
I am informally reporting [Name], [Title], for a violation of their official duties and the Indiana Election Code. The respondent may be engaging in candidate interference by using their official position to threaten candidates with a Class A misdemeanor—carrying a one-year jail sentence—under IC § 3-9-3-2.5 for displaying standard political signs on private property.
Legal Argument:
The respondent’s actions represent an ethical breach by enforcing a void statute through the threat of incarceration. Under IC 3-14-3-18, communicating a threat to a candidate with the intent to influence their conduct could be a Level 6 felony. By threatening jail to force the removal of signs like "Vote for Smith," the respondent may be engaging in criminal candidate interference.
The respondent’s actions represent an ethical breach by enforcing a void statute through the threat of incarceration. Under IC 3-14-3-18, communicating a threat to a candidate with the intent to influence their conduct could be a Level 6 felony. By threatening jail to force the removal of signs like "Vote for Smith," the respondent may be engaging in criminal candidate interference.
Furthermore, in Price v. State (622 N.E.2d 954), the Indiana Supreme Court held that political speech is a core constitutional value that the state may not materially burden. In Stewart v. Taylor (953 F. Supp. 1047), the court struck down Indiana’s previous disclaimer laws as unconstitutional. Per Talley v. California and NIFLA v. Becerra, government-mandated disclaimers that co-opt a speaker’s message are unconstitutional censorship.
2. Letter to the Indiana Election Commission
To: Indiana Election Commission
Address: 302 W. Washington Street, Room E-204, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Address: 302 W. Washington Street, Room E-204, Indianapolis, IN 46204
Subject: Grievance: Potential Violation of IC 3-14-3-18 and Unconstitutional Censorship
Dear Members of the Commission:
This grievance is filed regarding [Name] for utilizing IC § 3-9-3-2.5 as a tool of criminal intimidation. The respondent has issued threats of jail time to candidates for signage lacking disclaimers.
This grievance is filed regarding [Name] for utilizing IC § 3-9-3-2.5 as a tool of criminal intimidation. The respondent has issued threats of jail time to candidates for signage lacking disclaimers.
This conduct could be a Level 6 felony under IC 3-14-3-18, which prohibits threatening a candidate to influence their actions. By using the threat of a Class A misdemeanor to suppress signs, the respondent may be engaging in unconstitutional censorship. As established in Price v. State and Stewart v. Taylor, the state cannot materially burden core political speech. Furthermore, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Moody v. NetChoice affirm that the government may not co-opt a private party's expressive choices. Such conduct fails the requirement for uniform administration of election law under IC § 3-6-4.1-14.
3. Grievance to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
Subject: Grievance Against Attorney [Name]: Potential Violation of RPC 3.4(h) and 4.1
Description of Conduct:
I am informally reporting [Name] for a potential violation of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(h), which prohibits threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil or political matter.
I am informally reporting [Name] for a potential violation of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(h), which prohibits threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil or political matter.
As an Election Commissioner, the respondent may be engaging in professional misconduct by threatening candidates with jail for political signs under IC § 3-9-3-2.5. This enforcement path was held unconstitutional in Stewart v. Taylor and restricted by Price v. State. By misrepresenting the legality of these signs to laypeople, the respondent’s conduct could also violate RPC 4.1. Per Talley v. California and NIFLA v. Becerra, these disclaimer requirements are unconstitutional censorship. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court reiterated that the state cannot co-opt an individual’s voice. Using the threat of a one-year jail sentence to suppress "Vote for Smith" signs is a grave violation of the respondent's professional oath and the administration of justice.
2. Contact the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF)
Based in Indianapolis, PILF focuses specifically on election integrity and law. Since they are local and specialize in the Indiana Election Code, they may be more inclined to stop a Commissioner from misusing the Disclaimer Brochure.
- Link: Public Interest Legal Foundation Contact
3. Reach out to the National Center for Free Speech and Agriculture (NCFSA)
Though the name sounds niche, they are an Indiana-based constitutional firm (led by attorneys like Pete Rusthoven or similar high-profile Indiana litigators) that often takes on First Amendment and property rights cases involving signage.
4. The "Notice of Claim" (Pro Se Action)
If you cannot find a lawyer today, you can trigger the legal process yourself to get their attention:
- Tort Claims Notice: Under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, you must give the state/county notice within 180 days of the threat. Filing this Official Notice often forces the County Attorney to tell the Commissioner to stop, as the county doesn't want the liability.
- Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus: You can file this in your local Circuit Court. You are asking the judge to order the Commissioner to "perform their duty" by ceasing the use of a void statute to threaten jail.
5. Contact "The Indiana Lawyer"
No comments:
Post a Comment