Sec. 4. (a) The state recount commission shall conduct
recount proceedings under IC 3-12-11 resulting from:
(1) a presidential primary election;
(2) the nomination of a candidate to a federal, state, or legislative
office in a primary election; or
(3) an election for a federal, state, or legislative office.
(b) The state recount commission shall conduct recount proceedings
under IC 3-12-12 resulting from a public question voted on by the
electorate of the entire state.
(c) The state recount commission shall conduct contest proceedings
under IC 3-12-11 resulting from:
(1) a presidential primary election;
(2) the nomination of a candidate to a federal, state, or legislative
office in a primary election; or
(3) an election for a federal, state, or legislative office.
As added by P.L.7-1986, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.3-1987,
SEC.388; P.L.10-1988, SEC.163; P.L.14-2004, SEC.163;
P.L.169-2015, SEC.150.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Crawford v. Delaware Circuit Court, 655 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 1995).
· cites it 2× “or a voter's allegation that (i) the successful candidate does not meet applicable constitutional or statutory requirements, or (i) it is impossible to determine which candidate received the highest number of votes because of a mistake in the printing or distribution of ballots,…”
State on Rel. Crawford v. Del. Cir. Ct., 655 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 1995).
· cites it 2× “essful candidate's or a voter's allegation that (i) the successful candidate does not meet applicable constitutional or statutory requirements, or (ii) it is impossible to determine which candidate received the highest number of votes because of a mistake in the printing or…”
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 375 F. Supp. 2d 788 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 2× “1(a) and (b) and I.C. § 3-12-10-4(a)) makes us less certain that he has no role in this litigation.”
— Ind. Code § 3-12-10-4(a) — 2 cases
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 375 F. Supp. 2d 788 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
“1(a) and (b) and I.C. § 3-12-10-4(a)) makes us less certain that he has no role in this litigation.”
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.