<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, November 09, 2026

 the State also appeals the district court's ruling that the SEVGL's labeling, brochure and signage provisions constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court recently observed, some of its "leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say." Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1297, 164 L. Ed. 2d 156 (2006) (citing W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943) and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977)). The Court has stated that where a statute " [m]andat [es] speech that a speaker would not otherwise make," that statute "necessarily alters the content of the speech." See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795, 108 S. Ct. 2667, 1

 

blagovitch. 2006  in  1997 the 7th denied majors v abell, on the basis of a temporary uncertainty resulting from mconnell v fec. this uncertainty faded as more bcra cases came down, wrtl i and ii, davis, cruz, etc. 

the 7th has reentered the mainstream of american law in cases such as Blagovitch (2006) Mulholland and NIFLA. Mulholard (2014?) was a procedural dispute not on the merits. It concerned an Indiana slating statute void under McIntyre. no one suggested that majors was still a factor. the case settled below for 70k.     

Recently in NIFLA the 7th again followed s ct precedent, ruling that Indiana could not require disclaimers at pregnancy crisis centers.

ok i need dthe cites for that. 

 


Sunday, November 08, 2026

 ai slop version do not use, muddlles a feew  key details  

yes. you'll ge tit wring somehow but sure
5:11 PM
STATEMENT ATTACHED TO FORM HAVA-1
COMPLAINANT: Robbin G. Stewart
RESPONDENTS: Marion County Election Board, Marion County Voter Registration, and Unknown Poll Clerks/Officials (John/Jane Does #1–6)
DATE OF INCIDENTS: Tuesday, November 3, 2026

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Incident 1: Local Precinct (RecycleForce) – Approx. 9:30 AM
On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at approximately 9:30 AM, I entered my designated polling location at RecycleForce (8xx N. Sherman Drive, Indianapolis, IN). I approached the poll clerk (Jane Doe #1) to cast my ballot. The clerk requested photo identification. I declined to present it, citing my right to vote under the Indiana Constitution and the protections against warrantless searches and seizures under Article 1, Section 11. The clerk stated three separate times that I could not vote without photo ID. At no point did the clerk offer me a provisional ballot or inform me of my right to cast one under state or federal law. I was forced to leave the premises without voting.
Incident 2: Marion County Voter Registration Office – Approx. 12:00 PM
At approximately 12:00 PM, I went to the City-County Building (City Hall West Wing/East Wing) to report the violation to election officials. At the voter registration desk, the front-desk staffer (Jane Doe #5) asserted three times that voting without photo ID is completely prohibited. I demanded to speak with her supervisor. The supervisor (John Doe) arrived, handed me his business card, and repeated three separate times that I could not vote without photo ID.
While the front-desk staffer began mentioning provisional ballots, the supervisor's repeated misstatements of the law created an impasse. When I loudly objected to his incorrect statement of the rules, office staff summoned a law enforcement officer. The officer ordered me to leave the public office under threat of armed force, preventing any further discussion or administrative resolution. This command constituted a seizure under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. As I walked out, I identified myself as Robbin Stewart, the Republican candidate for Marion County Clerk. The officer yelled a third time for me to depart.
Incident 3: Beech Grove Junior High School – Approx. 2:30 PM to 3:00 PM
I took public transit (Route 56) to Beech Grove. Outside the polling location at Beech Grove Junior High School, I encountered Beech Grove Mayor James Coffman. We discussed his local race and the school referendum. After exiting the building, I informed Mayor Coffman that I had been denied my right to vote earlier in the day. We agreed that the breakdown was a systemic Marion County Election Board issue rather than a localized Beech Grove city issue.
Incident 4: Local Precinct Return (RecycleForce) – Approx. 5:55 PM
At 5:55 PM, shortly before the close of the polls, I returned to RecycleForce to attempt to cast a ballot. The same poll clerk (Jane Doe #1) again informed me that I could not vote without photo ID. Two additional clerks backed up her statement. Despite having the entire day to seek clarification or retraining from the Marion County Election Board, the precinct staff remained untrained and willfully refused to provide a provisional ballot. As a direct result, I was denied the opportunity to vote for myself as a candidate for County Clerk.

II. STATUTORY VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
The explicit refusal to offer, issue, or process a provisional ballot when my eligibility was questioned due to a lack of photo identification constitutes a direct and systemic violation of Title III, Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act (52 U.S.C. § 21082), as well as parallel state enforcement procedures under Indiana Code § 3-6-4.5. Under federal law, any individual who declares they are a registered voter in the jurisdiction is strictly entitled to cast a provisional ballot if their name does not appear or if an official challenges their eligibility.

III. FACT WITNESSES
Witness Name / IdentifierContact / LocationExpected Testimony
Jane Does #1, #2, #3, #4Poll Workers at RecycleForce (8xx N. Sherman)Will testify to the strict refusal to offer a provisional ballot when photo ID was not provided.
Two VolunteersElection Protection Desk (City-County Bldg)Took a contemporaneous report of the vote denial and the removal by armed law enforcement.
MelvinIndependent Candidate for Center Township ConstableSpoke with Complainant outside City-County Building; witness to immediate aftermath of the office removal.
Jane Doe #5Front Desk, Voter Registration OfficeWill testify to asserting that photo ID is an absolute prerequisite to ballot access.
John Doe (Supervisor)Voter Registration Office (Card Attached)Will testify to his repeated assertions that a voter cannot cast a ballot without photo ID.
Unknown Law Enforcement OfficerMarion County Sheriff / IPDWill testify to ordering the Complainant to leave the Voter Registration Office under threat of force.
Mayor James CoffmanMayor of Beech Grove, INWill testify to the Complainant's immediate, contemporaneous report of vote denial at 2:30 PM.

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT
  1. Declaratory Relief: A formal administrative finding that the Respondents failed to meet the mandatory standard of care required under Title III of HAVA, establishing administrative negligence by the Marion County Election Board.
  2. Written Admission: A formal written acknowledgment from Marion County authorities that they failed to respect my right to vote and my procedural right to a provisional ballot under the Privileges or Immunities Clause for federal elections.
  3. Mandatory Poll Worker Retraining: A total overhaul of the county's election worker training materials. This must include an interactive video curriculum and a mandatory written quiz verifying that all staff understand precisely when a provisional ballot must be issued under the Indiana Constitution and HAVA.
  4. Audit and Paperwork Requirements: Implementation of a mandatory log and paper receipt system. Whenever a poll worker turns a citizen away or challenges their identification, a standardized administrative form must be filled out immediately to preserve the integrity and audit trail of the election process.

I swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing representations are true.

Robbin G. Stewart, Complainant
State of Indiana )
County of Marion )
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, this _____ day of November, 2026.

Notary Public Print Name: _________________
My Commission Expires: _________________
To ensure this is ready for your filing tomorrow, let me know:

 

 

 


 oh, if anyone came here looking for campaign stuff, i lost, as expected, but in  an unexpected blowout, 26%. It was a national realignment to pre-clinton levels. house 270ish to 160ish, senate 56 or 57. watch everyone's positiion on the filibuster flip flop.


 Hava Complaint first draft nov 8 notes at church 

facts

witnesses

date and time

locations

who is responsible?

other information 

do i want a hearing? 

=

 

facts

witnesses

date and time

locations

who is responsible?

other information 

do i want a hearing? 

=

 

facts

witnesses jane doe #1, 2 3, 4 women at recycleforce. two election protecttion volunteers. the cop. jane #5 at the registation office. her supervisor john doe. jane doe #6 at beech grove jr high. 

date and time october 3. 9:30 am first incident. around noon2nd incident. around 3 pm theird incident 5:55 fourth incident.

locations

precinct at recycleforce, 8xx n sherman 

city hall west wing. 

beech grove jr high. 

who is responsible? does + county + county board. the cop.

other information 

do i want a hearing? yes. 

=

 

 

facts

witnesses

date and time

locations

who is responsible?

other information 

do i want a hearing? 

 

=

 3:43 pm sun day continuing, transcibng what i wrote in longhand while at church. 

 On November 3rd, Tuesday, 9:30 a m, I  went to my local precinct at recycleforce, 8xx N Sherman. I walked in, no video this trip, no witness with me. I may have said I'd like to vote if I can, but she might have asked for ID first. I said No. She said that without ID I can't vote. I briefly cited the Indiana constitution for my right to vote and the warrant requirement under section 11 of article I, She repeated that without ID I could not vote.  She said this three times. She did not offer a provisional ballot as required by Indiana law and HAVA, I left. 

I went to city hall, the east wing of the city county building. Outside before going in I spoke with 2 volunteers from election protection, explaining what had happened. I also later spoke with Melvin, the independent candidate for center township constable, whose sign I had in my yard.  I went in.

At the clerk's office I was ordered to "stay in line" and told that the clerk's office was closed but they were  using the voter registration office as an ad hoc hq.  I went there and spoke to the front desk staffer at voter registration. She claimed that I can't vote without ID. She said this three times. I asked to speak to her supervisor. He gave me his card. He also said three times that I can't vote without ID. Meanwhile she was bringing up provisional ballots. I may have said that isn't what you said before. I became frustrated when he said the third time and loudly said No! That's not the rule. 

They called over a cop. He ordered me to leave, with no further discussion.  This was a seizure under both constitutions, section 11 and 4th a. I said, "You have a gun? Then I'm leaving. I walked away, leaving. As I was close to the outer door I turned and said that I'm Robbin Stewart, the GOP candidate for clerk. He yelled for the third time for me to leave and I continued leaving and left.   

Outside, this might be when I spoke to melvin, saying they didn't let me vote. He took their side that voter ID is required.  So he may remember the incident, and is a witness. 

I started toward the bus station, but changed my mind then went back to the election protection desk. I said I went in to tell them my complaint, but a man with a gun ordered me to leave. Thgey took my information for a report, called it in, an d told me to expect a follow up email, which I have not received. One of them, a black woman who may have been a lawyer, went inside for 10 or 15 minutes. When she came out she said it would be ok for me to go in and cast a provisional ballot. I said that I was not comfortable trying to go back in after the man with the gun had ordered me out. I thanked them and left. I caught  the 56 to Beech Grove.   I am not driving these days because Beech Grove stole my  van. 

notes, try to follow up with election protection organization.  

i  need to find that card. i do have it hetre somewheere. 

At Beech Grove Jr. High, about 2 30 or 3, I first encountered Mayor James @. He asked me why I didn't have signs, and we discussed his race and the school referendum. After I came out I told him how I had been denied the vote. We agreed that it was a Marion County problem, not a city of beech grove problem. So he is a fact witness. He did not see me being turned away, but he saw me go in and come out and would remember it.  He was more cordial that he usually is. Coffman. 

@ i need to remember to go tomorrow. beech grove city council by 7 pm. 

I took the 56 and the 8 home. I went back to 5xx sherman at 5:55. Again the same lady told me I could not vote without ID. Both of the clerks backed her up. She seemed smug.  She had had all day to figure it out,  but had not bothered. The election officials should have retrained her by then. 

 I went home. I was tired and did not go to the victory party. I lost by a wider margin than I expected, with about 26%. 

I ran for county clerk, but didn't not even get to vote for myself.

It escalated rapidly, from vote denial to being threatened with  a gun.   

That was tuesday. I still need to write up the first wednesday and and thursday of early voting.  

Relief sought:

I seek declaratory relief that the does and the county failed to  meet the standard of care under the requirements of hava, which would suggest that the board was negligent. For jurisidctional reasons I am not seeking damages in this forum, in that HAVA does not provide a private cause of action.  

I seek  a written admission from the county that they failed to respect my right to vote and my procedural right to a hearing on my provisional ballot. p + i clause, voting in a federal election. 

@ oh  when is the hearing? maybe they'll let me vote provisional. :)  i should go and testify. ask to be put on the agenda. 

I seek retraining.That is, they should remake the training video One  method to measure if the training is effective  would be to include a   quiz covering when to issu e  provisional ballot, and which parts of the constitution apply.  

I seek that when they plan to turn   somebody away, they document it with some sort of paperwork so there is a record. Failure to do this harms the integrity of the election process. 

@ ok print this off and get it notarized tomorrow. maybe  file tomorrow before beech grove meeting at 7 pm.  still need to write up tyhe other incidents.

 

 

 


 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
CLAIMANT:
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

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?

 


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?