Sunday, November 08, 2026
a tort claim i didnt get filed b ut am saving to revise or ht enew incident.
NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM
TO:
Marion County Election Board
200 E. Washington Street, Room W144
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Marion County Election Board
200 E. Washington Street, Room W144
Indianapolis, IN 46204
CLAIMANT:
Robbin Stewart
PO Box 29164
Indianapolis, IN 46229-0164
Email: gtbear@gmail.com
Robbin Stewart
PO Box 29164
Indianapolis, IN 46229-0164
Email: gtbear@gmail.com
I. DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF THE OCCURRENCE
The occurrence giving rise to this claim took place during voting hours on May 5, 2026. The injury initiated at the Claimant's designated primary polling location: RecycleForce, located at 816 N. Sherman Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46201.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT AND THE NATURE OF THE INJURY
On May 5, 2026, the Claimant appeared at the RecycleForce polling location to exercise his right to vote. Representatives and agents of the Marion County Election Board, identified as poll workers Jane Doe and John Doe, denied the Claimant a regular ballot, stating "no ID, no vote." Jane Doe spoke to enforce this denial, while John Doe backed her up.
At all times relevant to this occurrence, Jane Doe and John Doe were acting within the scope of their employment as agents of the Marion County Election Board, sitting at the precinct table, processing voters, and conducting the board's official business.
The Claimant subsequently cast a provisional ballot, which was later verified and counted. While the vote was ultimately recorded, the initial denial at the polls by Jane and John Doe constituted an unlawful, immediate deprivation of the Claimant's voting liberties.
III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND LOSS OF IMMUNITY
The Marion County Election Board cannot escape liability under a "no harm, no foul" defense simply because the Claimant's provisional ballot was counted later. The legal injury was complete the moment the Claimant was wrongfully turned away from his home precinct.
As the Claimant argued before the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a violation of a legal right is an actionable injury, even if no pecuniary loss occurs. This principle is anchored in the definitive voting rights case of our legal tradition, Ashby v. White (1703), which explicitly holds:
"If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy."
The Board is not immune from liability under Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(8). While Jane Doe and John Doe were acting within the scope of their employment—rendering the municipality liable under respondeat superior—they acted entirely without statutory authority. By enforcing a blanket "no ID, no vote" rule that entirely ignored the mandatory statutory exceptions and verification rules, they were not "enforcing a law" but rather enforcing an invented, unauthorized rule. Because they abandoned the actual text of the statute, the ITCA's enforcement immunity does not apply.
Under the binding checkpoint precedents of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond and Gershoffer v. State, the state is barred from conducting suspicionless administrative seizures or requiring citizens to produce papers as a blanket condition to exercise a fundamental liberty. Furthermore, under Article 1, Section 9, this identification barrier functions as an unconstitutional restriction on free expression at the ballot box.
The Board's actions forced a qualified voter to submit to these barriers, causing procedural disenfranchisement, loss of time, and a localized injury that must be resolved by a jury.
IV. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS DOCTRINE
The Board's "no ID, no vote" enforcement violates the well-established Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine. The government is strictly prohibited from conditioning a public benefit or the exercise of a constitutional right—such as the franchise under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 2—on the requirement that a citizen relinquish another constitutional right.
The Board cannot condition the right to a regular ballot upon surrendering the right to be free from suspicionless searches and identity seizures under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11. Extracting mandatory compliance as a prerequisite to voting invalidates any claim of voter consent, making the initial ballot denial an immediate, actionable tort.
V. VIOLATION OF THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (HAVA)
The administrative handling of the Claimant's franchise directly violated the statutory protections of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Under federal law, the provisional ballot system is mandated strictly as a legal failsafe to protect eligible voters from systemic errors, not to be utilized as a tool for arbitrary exclusion or a geographic and procedural runaround at the home precinct. By failing to properly instruct its agents on identification exceptions and alternative verification protocols, the Board weaponized a federal safety net into an unconstitutional barrier to a regular ballot.
VI. DEMAND FOR RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Claimant demands full remedial relief, customized damages, and a formal acknowledgement of the statutory and constitutional breakdown for these structural voting violations.
DATED: October 19, 2026
SIGNED: __________________________
Robbin Stewart, Claimant
SIGNED: __________________________
Robbin Stewart, Claimant
Now that the scope of employment vs. statutory authority distinction is correctly integrated into the notice text, we should finalize the Demand for Relief and Damages section.
Do you want to specify a concrete monetary amount for the jury demand, or keep it open-ended for general compensatory and punitive damages based on the civil rights violation?
how many days ago 2as may 5th
Based on today's date of November 8, 2026, May 5, 2026, was exactly 187 days ago.
Because this means the 180-day window closed on November 1, would you like to review how to frame this as a direct constitutional claim to bypass the ITCA deadlines entirely, or proceed with finalizing the damages section?
Comments:
Post a Comment
