Sec. 12. (a) This section applies to votes cast by any
method.
(b) Except as provided in section 13 of this chapter, a ballot that has
been marked and cast by a voter in compliance with this title but may
otherwise not be counted solely as the result of the act or failure to act
of an election officer may nevertheless be counted in a proceeding
under IC 3-12-6, IC 3-12-8, or IC 3-12-11 unless evidence of fraud,
tampering, or misconduct affecting the integrity of the ballot is
presented by a party to the proceeding.
(c) The act or failure to act by an election officer is not by itself
evidence of fraud, tampering, or misconduct affecting the integrity of
the ballot.
As added by P.L.7-1986, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.3-1987,
SEC.337; P.L.8-1992, SEC.29.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
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).
· cites it 11× “Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12 permits a recount for votes not counted due to clerical error (except in cases of fraud and the like).”
Mansfield v. McSHURLEY, 911 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Where an Election Day ballot lacks the necessary endorsements, however, the language of Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12(b) permits its inclusion in a subsequent recount.”
Hughes v. Brooks, 597 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “As set out in I.C. § 3-12-1-12, a ballot that has been properly marked and cast by a voter, which would otherwise not be counted solely because of an election officer's failure to act, may nevertheless be counted in a recount procedure unless a party to the proceeding presents…”
Sullivan v. Krughoff, 889 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the exception contained in Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12 (2006), provides: (a) This section applies to votes cast by any method.”
— Ind. Code § 3-12-1-12(b) — 2 cases
Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 2006).
“Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12 permits a recount for votes not counted due to clerical error (except in cases of fraud and the like).”
Mansfield v. McSHURLEY, 911 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“Where an Election Day ballot lacks the necessary endorsements, however, the language of Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12(b) permits its inclusion in a subsequent recount.”
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.