IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

Robbin Stewart, Plaintiff,

v.

Kate Sweeney Bell (in her official and personal capacities), Marion County Election Board, Nolita Stewart (in her official capacity), Jennifer Ping (in her official capacity), Chad Clingerman (in his personal capacity), and John/Jane Does 1–10, Defendants.

Case No.: [To Be Assigned]

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Indiana Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

I. INTRODUCTION [unchanged from prior draft]

II. PARTIES [unchanged, with Bell in dual capacity, Chad personal only as messenger/agent]

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE [unchanged]

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [unchanged, with emphasis on brochure delivery as true threat]

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I: Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 9 – Free Communication [unchanged from prior draft]

Count II: Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 1 – Inalienable Rights [unchanged from prior draft]

Count III: Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 11 – Unreasonable Seizure [unchanged from prior draft]

Count IV: Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 12 – Remedy by Due Course of Law / Courts Open [unchanged from prior draft]

Count V: Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 31 – Right to Assemble and Petition [unchanged from prior draft]

Count VI: First Amendment – Freedom of Speech (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 18. Defendants’ enforcement of disclaimer requirements on Plaintiff’s campaign signs constitutes an unconstitutional burden on freedom of speech.

19. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), protect core political speech; strict scrutiny applies and is not satisfied here.

Count VII: First Amendment – Freedom of the Press (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 20. The disclaimer mandate burdens dissemination of political information via signs, violating freedom of the press.

21. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), prohibits compelled speech in press contexts; applies to campaign signs.

Count VIII: First Amendment – Right to Privacy / Anonymity (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 22. Enforcement violates the right to anonymous political speech.

23. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), and NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), protect anonymity in political expression, especially for candidates and non-candidates.

Count IX: First Amendment – Right to Petition (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 24. The disclaimer requirement and brochure threat restrain Plaintiff’s right to petition voters through campaign signs.

25. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), and Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988), protect petitioning and advocacy speech.

Count X: Fourteenth Amendment – Privileges or Immunities Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 26. Enforcement infringes privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, including the right to engage in political speech and candidacy without compelled disclosure.

27. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), and subsequent interpretations recognize political participation as a privilege of citizenship.

Count XI: Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 28. Enforcement discriminates among candidates and speakers based on resources, knowledge, or willingness to disclose, violating equal protection.

29. Strict scrutiny applies to burdens on political speech; no rational basis or compelling interest is satisfied.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF [unchanged from prior draft, with damages against Bell and Clingerman personally where applicable]

VERIFICATION [unchanged]