A bill for the oath of ballot counter for provisional ballots, which was amended but held in committee Wednesday, was authored because of a “difficulty in responding to” a records request by the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration office, state officials said.
Lake County Board of Elections and Registration Director Michelle Fajman said the office did not receive a public request for the oath of ballot counter for provisional ballots in the general election.
“There is no documentation. If they have it, I would love to see it,” Fajman said. “Lake County does an excellent job, and for something to try to throw us under the bus is offensive.”
Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, authored Senate Bill 186, which would require the circuit court clerk to give a copy of each oath counter on provisional ballots to the election division no later than 30 days after the election.
Chairman of the House Elections and Apportionment Committee Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, offered an amendment to the bill to remove the requirement for the circuit court clerk to transmit a copy of each oath taken by a ballot counter for the 2024 election. The amendment was adopted unanimously.
Brad King, Republican co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said he supports the bill. The Lake County election office “experienced, from the perspective of the Republican assistant director at that time, difficulty in responding to public records requests for oaths of the provisional ballot counters.”
“The bill before you comes from the actual experience that the individual had in providing those records upon request,” King said. “It’s not unprecedented. It mirrors a provision in current law.”
LeAnn Angerman, the former assistant director, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rep. Julie Olthoff, R-Crown Point, said the bill creates “a backup” and “protects everybody.” While Olthoff said she wasn’t clear on what the end result of the Lake County public records request was, “if it didn’t come in a timely manner, or it didn’t come at all and there was an issue getting it,” the bill will address that.
“It adds a layer of accountability, protection for the clerks in case of a question, and it’s always a good practice to have a backup,” Olthoff said.
Fajman said office staff sign the oath of ballot counter for provisional ballots as they are the only ones who review the ballots. Then, the bipartisan board reviews the ballots, she said.
On Wednesday, Fajman said office staff began making copies of provisional ballots, which are 13×19 envelopes, to send to the state legislators. The legislators will see, Fajman said, that the same four staff members sign the provisional ballots.
“I would like the legislators to see how time-consuming this is,” Fajman said.
In drafting the bill, Dernulc previously said he worked with Secretary of State Diego Morales and King. Dernulc previously testified that he authored the bill after residents came to him to talk about more transparency in the election process.
“They would like to see a little more transparency, that’s all,” Dernulc previously said. “There’s nothing that anybody’s doing that’s adversarial or bad, just a little more transparency into it.”
Indiana Election Division Democratic co-general counsel Matthew Kochevar, who said he was speaking on his own behalf, said the bill only addresses oaths for provisional ballot counters and not oath forms poll workers or absentee ballot counters sign.
Kochevar said he opposed the bill because people can file a records request to see provisional ballot signatures at their local election office, which is easier than traveling to Indianapolis to see the signatures. Further, the bill adds another paper trail the election division would have to monitor, he said.
Kochevar pointed to Fajman’s testimony when the bill was in committee in the Senate. In her testimony, Fajman held up a 13×19 envelope and pointed to where a ballot counter signs the oath at the bottom.
“This is a waste of money. I know the individuals who he’s talking about that want transparency. They have not come into our office to ask for it. If they did, I would gladly show them,” Fajman previously testified.
Wesco said the bill would be held in committee “for possible consideration at a future meeting.”
akukulka@post-trib.com
