Sec. 6. (a) A petition filed under section 5 of this
chapter must state the following:
(1) That the petitioner desires to contest the nomination or
election to an office.
(2) The name of each candidate as set forth on the ballot for the
election and address of each candidate as set forth in the records
of the county election board or election division.
(3) That the petitioner in good faith believes that one (1) or more
of the following occurred:
(A) The person declared nominated or elected does not comply
with a specific constitutional or statutory requirement set forth
in the petition that is applicable to a candidate for the office.
(B) A mistake was made in the printing or distribution of
ballots used in the election that makes it impossible to
determine which candidate received the highest number of
votes cast in the election.
(C) A mistake occurred in the programming of an electronic
voting system, making it impossible to determine the candidate
who received the highest number of votes.
(D) An electronic voting system malfunctioned, making it
impossible to determine the candidate who received the highest
number of votes.
(E) A deliberate act or series of actions occurred making it
impossible to determine the candidate who received the highest
number of votes cast in the election.
(b) A petition stating that the petitioner believes that it is impossible
to determine the candidate that received the highest number of votes
for one (1) of the reasons described in subsection (a)(3)(B), (a)(3)(C),
or (a)(3)(D) must identify each precinct in which:
(1) ballots:
(A) containing the printing mistake; or
(B) distributed by mistake;
were cast;
(2) a mistake occurred in the programming of an electronic voting
system; or
(3) an electronic voting system malfunctioned.
(c) A petition stating that the petitioner believes that an act or series
of actions described in subsection (a)(3)(E) occurred must identify each
precinct or other location in which the act or series of actions occurred
to the extent known to the petitioner.
[Pre-1986 Recodification Citation: 3-1-28-4(a) part.]
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.10-1988,
SEC.155; P.L.10-1989, SEC.13; P.L.4-1991, SEC.118; P.L.176-1999,
SEC.101; P.L.221-2005, SEC.120.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case:
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Code § 3-12-8-2; see also Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3). Pabey contested the results of the East Chicago mayoral primary pursuant to subsection (5), that is, that a deliberate series of actions had occurred *1148 that made it impossible to determine the candidate who had received…”
Anderson v. Ivy, 955 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “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 substantially similar language…”
White v. Indiana Democratic Party ex rel. Parker, 963 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 2012).
· cites it 4× “In Burke , we dealt with a post-election disqualification challenge brought in a local election pursuant to Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3)(A), which parallels the language of Section 3-12-11-3(b)(4)(A).”
Mansfield v. McSHURLEY, 911 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “at 27); and (4) Mansfield did not allege any situation in which it was impossible to determine who received the highest number of votes as required by Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6. The trial court decided it had jurisdiction but found: "The requirements imposed by [the election contest…”
Campbell v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 908 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “" [LC] § 3-12-8-6(2)8)(A). A trial court, after hearing a petition "alleging that a candidate is ineligible," must declare as elected "the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and render judgment accordingly.”
Burke v. Bennett, 896 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Code § 3-12-8-2 and Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6. Burke alleged that the Little Hatch Act, 5 U.”
Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. 2025).
· cites it 6× “Although Thomas could have waited for the results of the election and then challenged Foyst’s nomination afterward under section 3-12-8-6, our law “strongly disfavors” post-election challenges.”
Donald B. Kite, Sr. v. Alexandra Curlin, 139 N.E.3d 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6 (a). 2 These exceptions apply to a candidate who (1) receives the most votes in a primary election; and (2) is certified as deceased.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6(2): 1 case
Campbell v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 908 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [LC] § 3-12-8-6(2)8)(A). A trial court, after hearing a petition "alleging that a candidate is ineligible," must declare as elected "the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and render judgment accordingly.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3): 2 cases
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
“Code § 3-12-8-2; see also Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3). Pabey contested the results of the East Chicago mayoral primary pursuant to subsection (5), that is, that a deliberate series of actions had occurred *1148 that made it impossible to determine the candidate who had received…”
Anderson v. Ivy, 955 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“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 substantially similar language…”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3)(A): 3 cases
White v. Indiana Democratic Party ex rel. Parker, 963 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 2012).
“In Burke , we dealt with a post-election disqualification challenge brought in a local election pursuant to Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3)(A), which parallels the language of Section 3-12-11-3(b)(4)(A).”
Campbell v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 908 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [LC] § 3-12-8-6(2)8)(A). A trial court, after hearing a petition "alleging that a candidate is ineligible," must declare as elected "the qualified candidate who received the highest number of votes and render judgment accordingly.”
Ross Graham Thomas v. Joseph Foyst, 260 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. 2025).
“Although Thomas could have waited for the results of the election and then challenged Foyst’s nomination afterward under section 3-12-8-6, our law “strongly disfavors” post-election challenges.”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(8): 1 case
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
“Code § 3-12-8-2; see also Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3). Pabey contested the results of the East Chicago mayoral primary pursuant to subsection (5), that is, that a deliberate series of actions had occurred *1148 that made it impossible to determine the candidate who had received…”
Ind. Code § 3-12-8-6(c): 2 cases
Pabey v. Pastrick, 816 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2004).
“Code § 3-12-8-2; see also Ind.Code § 3-12-8-6(a)(3). Pabey contested the results of the East Chicago mayoral primary pursuant to subsection (5), that is, that a deliberate series of actions had occurred *1148 that made it impossible to determine the candidate who had received…”
Anderson v. Ivy, 955 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“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 substantially similar language…”
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.