Sec. 17. (a) A contest shall be heard and determined
by the court without a jury subject to the Indiana Rules of Trial
Procedure.
(b) The court shall determine the issues raised by the petition and
answer to the petition.
(c) After hearing and determining a petition alleging that a
candidate is ineligible, the court shall declare as elected or nominated
the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and
render judgment accordingly. If the court rules that the contestee is
ineligible, and no other individual was a candidate for nomination or
election, the court shall declare that no candidate has been:
(1) nominated at the primary, and that a ballot vacancy exists that
the political party may fill under IC 3-13-1 or IC 3-13-2; or
(2) elected at the general or municipal election, and that an office
vacancy exists that may be filled under IC 3-13, subject to the
right of an individual currently serving in the office to hold over
in that office under Article 15, Section 3 of the Constitution of the
State of Indiana.
(d) If the court finds that:
(1) a mistake in the printing or distribution of the ballots used in
the election;
(2) a mistake in the programming of an electronic voting system;
(3) a malfunction of an electronic voting system; or
(4) the occurrence of a deliberate act or series of actions;
makes it impossible to determine which candidate received the highest
number of votes, the court shall order that a special election be
conducted under IC 3-10-8.
(e) The special election shall be conducted in the precincts
identified in the petition in which the court determines that:
(1) ballots containing the printing mistake or distributed by
mistake were cast;
(2) a mistake occurred in the programming of an electronic voting
system;
(3) an electronic voting system malfunctioned; or
(4) the deliberate act or series of actions occurred.
[Pre-1986 Recodification Citation: 3-1-28-6 part.]
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.10-1989,
SEC.14; P.L.4-1991, SEC.119; P.L.14-2004, SEC.161; P.L.221-2005,
SEC.121; P.L.169-2015, SEC.149.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
· cites it 20× “Ind.Code § 3-12-8-17. The omission, Pastrick argues, from subsections (d) and (e), of any mention of "deliberate act or series of actions .”
Burke v. Bennett, 896 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 84× “Whether Burke must be declared elected pursuant to Ind.Code § 3-12-8-17. On cross appeal, Bennett raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether Bennett was subject to the Little Hatch Act, 5 U.”
Gaddis v. McCullough, 827 N.E.2d 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17 . 2 . At some points during this litigation, the unsuccessful candidates also argued that Indiana Code § 3-11-8-4.”
Anderson v. Ivy, 955 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” I.C. § 3-12-8-17(b). Relevant to the issue before us, both section 3-12-8-2 of the statute, which prescribes the grounds upon which an election may be contested, and section 3-12-8-6, which designates the required content of a petition to contest an election, contain…”
Lockard v. Miles, 882 N.E.2d 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Lockard asserts that because Miles was no longer an eligible candidate, Indiana Code § 3-12-8-17(c) 4 — which provides that if a candidate is ineligible, the qualified candidate receiving the highest number of votes is the winner — requires that Lockard “be declared the winner…”
Patterson v. Dykes, 804 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “That pursuant to [I.C. § 3-12-8-17] there is no statutory authority for the [clourt to order a special election in the present situation.”
Campbell v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 908 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 3-12-8-17(c) (emphasis added). Id. Additionally, the Indiana disqualification statute may be employed either pre-election to challenge one as a candidate or post-election to prevent the election winner from assuming his position.”
Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. 2009).
“§ 3-12-8-17(c) (emphasis added). Burke's claim of Bennett's ineligibility is grounded on the Indiana disqualification statute, specifically its subsection (5)(c)(6), which declares a person disqualified "from assuming" or from "being a candidate" for elected office if both of…”
Hawkins v. Wayne Tp. Bd. of Marion Cnty., In, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (S.D. Ind. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The court must hold a hearing within 20 days after the return day fixed by the notice of the contest to the respondent. Ind.Code § 3-12-8-16.”
Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. 2025).
· cites it 6× “§ 3-12-8-5, and they are subject to statutorily-required hearing procedures, see I.C. § 3-12-8-17. A successful candidacy challenge can remove a name from the ballot; a successful election contest can set aside the election results and declare a second- place finisher the winner.”
Donald B. Kite, Sr. v. Alexandra Curlin, 139 N.E.3d 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“Code § 3-12-8-17 . If the trial court determines that the contestee is ineligible, then the court “shall declare as elected or nominated the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and render judgment accordingly.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17(a): 1 case
Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. 2025).
“§ 3-12-8-5, and they are subject to statutorily-required hearing procedures, see I.C. § 3-12-8-17. A successful candidacy challenge can remove a name from the ballot; a successful election contest can set aside the election results and declare a second- place finisher the winner.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17(b): 3 cases
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
“Ind.Code § 3-12-8-17. The omission, Pastrick argues, from subsections (d) and (e), of any mention of "deliberate act or series of actions .”
Anderson v. Ivy, 955 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“” I.C. § 3-12-8-17(b). Relevant to the issue before us, both section 3-12-8-2 of the statute, which prescribes the grounds upon which an election may be contested, and section 3-12-8-6, which designates the required content of a petition to contest an election, contain…”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17(c): 5 cases
Lockard v. Miles, 882 N.E.2d 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Lockard asserts that because Miles was no longer an eligible candidate, Indiana Code § 3-12-8-17(c) 4 — which provides that if a candidate is ineligible, the qualified candidate receiving the highest number of votes is the winner — requires that Lockard “be declared the winner…”
Burke v. Bennett, 896 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“Whether Burke must be declared elected pursuant to Ind.Code § 3-12-8-17. On cross appeal, Bennett raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether Bennett was subject to the Little Hatch Act, 5 U.”
Campbell v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 908 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 3-12-8-17(c) (emphasis added). Id. Additionally, the Indiana disqualification statute may be employed either pre-election to challenge one as a candidate or post-election to prevent the election winner from assuming his position.”
Burke v. Bennett, 907 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. 2009).
“§ 3-12-8-17(c) (emphasis added). Burke's claim of Bennett's ineligibility is grounded on the Indiana disqualification statute, specifically its subsection (5)(c)(6), which declares a person disqualified "from assuming" or from "being a candidate" for elected office if both of…”
Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. 2025).
“§ 3-12-8-5, and they are subject to statutorily-required hearing procedures, see I.C. § 3-12-8-17. A successful candidacy challenge can remove a name from the ballot; a successful election contest can set aside the election results and declare a second- place finisher the winner.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17(d): 2 cases
Hawkins v. Wayne Tp. Bd. of Marion Cnty., In, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (S.D. Ind. 2002).
“The court must hold a hearing within 20 days after the return day fixed by the notice of the contest to the respondent. Ind.Code § 3-12-8-16.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-17(e): 1 case
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
“Ind.Code § 3-12-8-17. The omission, Pastrick argues, from subsections (d) and (e), of any mention of "deliberate act or series of actions .”
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.