Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 3-12-1-1 (2026)
Intent of voter primary factor to consider in determining voter's choice on ballot
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. Subject to sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9.5, and 13 of this chapter, the primary factor to be considered in determining a voter's choice on a ballot is the intent of the voter. If the voter's intent can be determined on the ballot or on part of the ballot, the vote shall be counted for the affected candidate or candidates or on the public question. However, if it is impossible to determine a voter's choice of candidates on a part of a ballot or vote on a public question, then the voter's vote concerning those candidates or public questions may not be counted.
[Pre-1986 Recodification Citations: 3-1-25-1(a) part; 3-1-25-18(g).]
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.3-1987, SEC.328; P.L.64-2014, SEC.68.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1992–2009 · leading case: Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 2006).
Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 2006). “An analysis of the facts of this case against the backdrop of Indiana Code section 83-12-1-1 would lead to a determination that these three voters did not definitively intend to vote for candidate Horseman, and thus their votes would remain uncounted.”
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). “§ 9 -150a(j) (1999) (standard for absentee ballots, including three conclusive presumptions); Ind. Code §3-12-1-1 (1992); Me. Rev. Stat.”
State Ex Rel. League v. Herrera, 203 P.3d 94 (N.M. 2009). “"); Ind.Code Ann. § 3-12-1-1 (2002) (subject to various exceptions, "the primary factor to be considered in determining a voter's choice on a ballot is the intent of the voter"); Me.”
State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Herrera, 2009-NMSC-003, 145 N.M. 563. “”); Ind.Code Ann. § 3-12-1-1 (2002) (subject to various exceptions, “the primary factor to be considered in determining a voter’s choice on a ballot is the intent of the voter”); Me.”
Hughes v. Brooks, 597 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). “" I.C. § 3-12-1-1: "Subject to sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 9.”
Curtis v. Butler, 866 N.E.2d 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Discussion and Decision Curtis contends that, when the Commission considered the eight absentee ballots in dispute in accordance with Indiana Code Section 3-12-1-1, it should have considered the lack of response to the Posey County Clerk’s letter of October 10, 2006, in its…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.