I believe the bell work there it is how's that how's that for timing I'm going to call the June 4th
2026 election board meeting to order. We're going to modify slightly I'm going to ask Kylie to update
some election board minutes because we don't have them all yet.
Yeah, so we were talking about it within the office and have decided that it would be better to hold
off on the minutes until all of them are completed. And then we just approve them at the same time so
that we are up to date and don't have part of them now and part of them in July. And then in addition
to that, I do have a couple of
upcoming important dates that are coming up on us, one of which being June 18th, 2026 at noon. That
is the deadline for school board filing. Then June 30th, 2026 at noon is the independent and minor party
candidate petition filings. That is your deadline to get your first set of petitions within our office.
And then July 3rd, 2026 at noon is the last day to fill any ballot vacancies.
July 6th at noon is writing candidate filing. July 15th at noon is independent minor party candidate
filing. And then July 15th at noon is candidate withdrawal for the general election. That was a lot.
It's all in an email going to you guys. So I don't write that fast anymore. Thank you. You're welcome.
All right. And then we will adopt our agenda.
unless there are questions. We'll adopt the agenda starting with what we have as number four, establish
the hearing procedures. We'll go from there and Molly is going to take the lead on this for us. So for
the election board's review I drafted a resolution establishing hearing procedures and
The resolution currently states that it's specific to the hearings held on today's date, but if the
board so wished to amend it, they could amend it to make the procedures for any future candidate complaint
hearings. I drafted this because it was advised by Indiana Election Division that it is recommended
to have some procedures in writing prior to the hearing.
plan on reading the resolution unless you would like me to, but I was going to summarize it.
Is that okay? We've read it, so a summary I think would work. So the procedures are that the election
chair would call the hearing to order, then any individual wishing to offer testimony would have to
be administered an oath.
The election board would then recognize the complainant. The complainant may present evidence and argument
to the election board for no more than 10 minutes unless the election board votes to allow additional
time to the presenter. If the complainant is not present, they could submit any written correspondence
that would be read at that time. And then it acknowledges that the burden of proving the complaint falls
on the complainant.
Thereafter, the board will recognize the candidate who's in question. The candidate may present evidence
to the board for no more than 10 minutes. However, if any extension of time afforded to the complainant,
if the complaint was given more time, it is recommended that the candidate in question also be given
the same amount of time. Evidence or argument presented by the party should be directed at the election
board and not other parties.
This in essence wouldn't allow the candidate or the petitioner to cross examine each other. The election
board may ask individuals who offer testimony questions. However, if any questions is posed
to the complainant or the candidate, it would not count against their time frame. If the complainant
or the candidate offers documents or evidence, a copy must be provided to the election board for the
record for the hearing.
And then upon conclusion of the evidence, the board will close the hearing and therefore thereafter
discuss how to resolve the complaint. That is the procedures as written. Here, do we need a motion to
accept this? Do we need. Please. I move that we pass the resolution adopting procedures for a hearing
to be held on June 4th, 2026.
Any discussion? You need to call a roll or can we do voice vote? This might be one where a roll is not
required, but I might recommend it. Ashley, please. Nicole Brown. Danny Shields. Yes. Penny Givens. Yes.
So now that we've adopted procedures I think what's next on the agenda is moving forward with the complaint
filed by Ms. Wheeler against Mr. Davis. So I can give a brief summary of that complaint. The election board was
We could either do it either way. We could officially call the hearing to order and then I could administer
the oath and then give a summary. That the way that flows is kind of up to you. OK, then I will officially
call the hearing to order. Do you want me to go ahead and proceed with a summary? OK, yes, yes, please.
The email was received from Ms. Karen Wheeler on April 28, 2026 that outlines one, two, three, four,
five. It looks like four potential election violations, and in summary that includes violations pertaining
to campaign signs without the required disclosure, electioneering inside the shoot, following a voter
after voting, and potentially misleading representation of legal credentials.
of the complaint was provided to the board as well as Mr Davis, who received certified notice of today's
hearing, along with a copy of that formal complaint. Unless there's questions on that summary, I think
we could proceed to the complainant providing or addressing her complaint.
I think we're ready to proceed. Is the complaintant here would like to address the board? Good afternoon.
I am Ms. Wheeler. Before you jump into it, I'm going to administer notes. So can you please state your
name? Karen Wheeler.
And Ms. Wheeler, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to provide to the board
is the truth? I do. And then for the record, Ms. Wheeler has affirmatively taken an oath. And now I
proceed. OK, so I had the opportunity to see Joe Davis pretty much every day during the election, early
voting, because I work in that building and I would come outside and I would see him.
And pretty much every day, I really can't think of a day that it didn't happen, but I did not have the
disclaimer on his signs in the beginning in that he would very often go into the chute. He would follow
people to the door. He would also follow people afterwards and having walking them to the car or toward
their car.
He would, I saw him different times blocking people so they could not even get out of their car easily.
And for me, as a woman, that would be intimidating. No matter where you're at, you just don't want anybody,
but especially a man standing there that I can't even open my door without him moving. And I think the
voting can be intimidating enough. You don't need to have somebody that's
stopping the person to even get out of their car. I don't think this is illegal, but it was an irritant
that he would sweep the sidewalk and the parking lot pretty much every day, that there would be a dust
bowl. It would be an irritant if I was a voter coming through there. I mean, when I walked through,
it would make me cough. I mean, you don't want to walk into all this dust.
He claimed that he was a practicing jurist at law, and I'm not really for sure what that is, but it
didn't seem like it was accurate or it seemed confusing at best. He would also just do things that were
kind of bizarre from brushing his teeth on the sidewalk, and so I thought it was a
I think Monroe County is a great county and we really want to have the most accurate voting day that
we have from our early voting to election day itself and this just did not reflect I think what Monroe
County stands for. I think that would be probably all, probably one thing too that was just a little
bit different than this that
I mean, even in all of that, I was probably surprised that there wasn't any action toward him, and maybe
the procedure is that somebody has to come in and complain. But I was kind of surprised that Election
Central didn't do this, because if I saw it, they saw it. It took a long time. It was weeks into it,
and I thought it should have been handled much sooner. And that's probably it.
Just to answer that, respond to the last comment, short of calling the authority, the sheriff's department
I guess would be, is there anything that anyone in your office or election central could have done about
this? We did. Okay. I'm sorry, the lights on here keep going off.
So there were multiple in-person conversations before a formal written notice was given to him. It was,
I believe, the first Saturday of early voting was when the written formal statement saying that he was
not doing things that he was allowed to be doing. And that was after the first two conversations that
we had had with him.
Is it fair to say you had also called Indiana Election Division for guidance? Yes, and that's when they
said to just go ahead and do a written statement and then after that to then move forward with
law enforcement and you had also notified the party chair, correct? So there was nothing that you could
have done differently. Yes, ma'am. And if I may, since Miss Ferris has now provided
testimony to the board. I'm going to administer an oath. Can you please state your name? And Miss Ferris,
is the statements you just made to the board truthful? Yes. Miss Ferris has affirmatively taken an oath.
Thank you. I didn't mean to lead to that, ma'am. I was just asking. And I remember the form that we
got where he was. You probably shouldn't be doing this. And
there was one occasion where I left Election Central headed back to the Justice Building that I county
attorneys who was on his way to deliver the paperwork to Davis regarding this what you could be charged
with this is penalty that it carries and we stopped and spoke on on that date
I'd like to point out to the public, too, that we received copies of short videos of Mr. Davis, and
at one point he was in the ... Am I allowed to describe the video that was sent to us? Okay. And he
kept saying, I'm not electioneering. Well, I would point out that there were pictures of Mr. Davis on
his yard sign, and so it was very clear who he was to anybody who was coming to vote, that he was in
fact the candidate.
whether he wore a t-shirt or a sign that his picture was up there for everyone to see. My question was
that he was given notice that he wasn't supposed to be doing. And then the complaint is that it continued
after those
Yeah, so he had came into our office almost daily, stopping and talking to us. There were times that
he would go in through the entrance of early voting across upstairs to then go to one of the restrooms.
And we had spoke to him about him not being able to do that and to come around to the main entrance.
And after I would say probably three conversations was when I reached out to IED. And then that was
that Saturday, the first Saturday of early voting that we did the formal written statement.
So it seems like it took about two weeks before there was anything that was obviously done from election
to central when it was daily that it was happening. Where the signs changed, the thing about not having
a disclaimer on the sign, the first one I saw had the disclaimer on, and very big, it may not admit,
But are you saying that they were changed during early voting from originally? Did I misunderstand you
saying that? Personally, I don't know if I ever saw a disclaimer on there. I don't know if all of them
were changed. There was some that I was told were changed, but we're talking at least two weeks, probably
longer. And I also know that he had been told by multiple people, probably
Every candidate that was out there would say, don't go in the chute. Please don't sweep. Don't do this.
Don't follow the people. Please don't whatever it was. And he continued to do them. It's my understanding
also that the disclaimer has to actually use the word eight or by or paid by. And that was not on and
has to be in a certain size font, which I don't remember right now what that is. Twelve. I don't know.
I was I was reading the law this morning.
things like that, but it has to use those words. And from what I observed, his, later at least in the
campaign, did not use those words on them. I have a picture of one that has his name and his picture
without the disclaimer on there if you want to see it, if you haven't. All right, can we do that? Can
we look at it? If Ms. Willard is presenting it, yes, we'll just need a copy of it. Is it the picture
that you've already provided a copy of?
I'm pretty sure it is. Okay. I did not get up close to look at them. You know, I kind of stayed away
from what was going on out front as much as I could. Just I didn't want to get in the middle of it.
I would like to see a copy if that's I can just hand this to you.
make it bigger. This is not the way, but it'll work.
That's probably not the techiest way you've ever seen something looked at, but it got the job done,
okay? Mr. Chair, there was one instance, and I can't tell you like in terms of the first day of early
voting or within a week, but I was told that there was someone who had a medical emergency and that
Mr. Davis went inside of the chute to assist
the person who had a medical emergency. Obviously, it's clear that there was more than one incident.
When I heard that, anybody I would think following the Good Samaritan Law would step inside to,
you know, in terms of priority. So if we're going, if we're establishing how many times did he violate
the shoot policy, I could see extending great
if it was medical, everything else, obviously, that he was in deliberate. She testified that she saw
it happen more than once. Yes, and I'm agreeing that it happened more than once. But in terms of the
inference that there
Unwillingness to address the issue the first issue brought to my attention was there was a medical issue
and so I did not raise that if Someone had called him out for that. I again I was prepared to Send a
grace because any good Samaritan not be worried about that if someone were in distress
Procedurally, I think the question is, Ms. Wheeler, are you done with your presentation? Yes, I am.
And so at this point, based on the procedures adopted, unless the board has further questions for Ms.
Wheeler, we would offer Mr. Davis the opportunity to make a presentation. I would be fine with that.
I do not see Mr. Davis present. Mr. Davis received notice of the hearing via certified letter that was
mailed on May 15th.
He subsequently came into our office last week to pick up copies of the video and photos that were submitted
with the complaint. So I do believe he had knowledge of today's hearing and he's not here. I have not
received any written correspondence from him. That's Election Central. We have not received anything
in writing. He did stop by today. So at this point,
doesn't appear that Mr. Davis is here to present evidence, and so procedurally you can move with closing
the hearing and deliberate. No, no, I was going to say, I can't see everybody that is online, but I
also do not see a hand raised. I do not see Mr. Davis online.
that Mr. Davis is coming in the building right now. I don't see any reason to recess for two minutes.
If he comes directly upstairs we'll just. It may be beneficial to recess. That way I can explain to
Mr. Davis the procedures that we adopted because I don't know that he was here for that and so. Then
I will recess the meeting until we're ready to move on.
So can we say for five minutes? I would say sure. OK, thank you. 158. All right, I have 158. I will
call the meeting back to order. And we're waiting. Mr. Davis is in the building, we believe. I did have
a brief conversation with Mr. Davis and advised him of the procedures. And he advised me he was bringing
up more stuff. Quote.
I told Mr. Davis we were in recess and that he might have to address the board. He is not present. And
for clarity to address the board to get more time to get the stuff. If you folks back there see him,
we'd like to have if he wants to talk to us, he should like be here. Mr. Chair, may I? Yes, please go ahead.
While we were in recess, I did want to clarify a couple of things with the election supervisor. And
so what I understand, and Kylie, please correct me if I am wrong, the guidance that the election supervisor
received from the Indiana election division was that it is the party chair's responsibility to, for
lack of a better term, corral the candidate. The election supervisor did notify
The party chair and no action was taken, which is then why she went and got more guidance in the written.
So there were procedurally things, whether or not it was clear to anyone watching, the steps were taken
as recommended by the Indiana.
are times that an officiating career comes in. You know what I mean? No. I was called for 1.30. Everyone
in here has
things that in their life as well. So. Miss King, you are. We're reconvened, yes, absolutely. So now
would be the opportunity for the board to hear Mr Davis's presentation. If Mr Davis intends to present,
I will ask you to take your
at the podium and I will administer you an oath. You know we've had enough time. You can either make
your presentation or not that's your option.
Mr. Davis. Well, at the beginning of today's meeting, we adopted procedures that afford you 10 minutes
of presentation. All right. I'd like to read those, please. I see those. Is this
Can we just? You can. You these were out. These were available. OK, Mr. Davis, I have a copy for you,
but it in summary says that the complaint will be afforded 10 minutes. The candidate would be afforded
10 minutes that the election board could ask questions. That.
time spent answering questions does not count to your 10 minute time frame. If you offer evidence you
have to provide a copy to the board and at the conclusion of the evidence the board closes the hearing
and therefore will after discuss the complaints. So at this time I think the board is indicating that
they are moving forward to the candidate's opportunity to present and so if you would like to make a
presentation can you please
take the podium so I can administer an oath and then your 10 minutes will start. Here are the adopted
procedures, sir. Can you please take the podium so I can administer an oath?
I think the board has not in recess, so they're asking you to proceed with the hearing so that it can
administer the oath. Mr. Davis, this is not helping your case. Okay. You had, it is time for us to continue.
It is highly appropriate. You have the same rules. Everyone else does. Without allowing me an opportunity
to read it. It was read into the minutes. We got it at 1.30. We didn't see you around there at 1.30.
You don't have to print it. She has copies of it. OK, but you adopted this while I was in here.
This was given to me. I can have an opportunity to read this. Would you administer the oath, please,
ma'am? Mr. Davis, if you need to be at the podium to administer the oath. You need to be at the podium
so she can administer the oath and we can continue.
as far as I'm concerned, this is cutting it. Are you doing the timing? I will start timing. Start the
10 minutes. So that's going to cut in my time. Your 10 minutes has begun. I swear to tell the truth.
No, Mr. Davis, you have to be at a microphone to the law enforcement. Would you please remove the
that could be construed as weapons from the room. No, these are not weapons. These are my tools. Those
can't be used as weapons. I want them moved. No, these are my tools. They're my exhibits. You're looking
at my tools. These are my exhibits. They are not weapons. This officer has already talked to me and
said, please turn anyone's digits off today with your printers. Did she say that? She just said,
Do not approach anyone within. I'm not going to. They are there. They're going to stay exactly where
they're at. OK, OK, Mr. Davis, do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide
to the board today is truthful? Mr. Davis, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to
provide today to the board is truthful? Sorry, what was that?
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're going to provide to the board today is truthful?
Yes, I do. This is for the record. Mr. Davis has now affirmatively taken an oath. It may proceed with
his presentation. OK, hello. My name is Joseph Bradley Davis. I ran for a clerk as Joe Davis and.
I attended, I was at every early voting session from the beginning all the way to the end. I camped
out basically at the area where early voting takes place, and it was a shambles. There was debris everywhere.
All over where the handicap parking was was a mess, so I took my time to clean up the property, clean
up the hardscape around, to prune the trees,
to make it hospitable so that voters could come and enjoy their day of voting instead of walking through
a litter covered environment with gravel that was hard to walk and branches and debris everywhere. Okay,
so I cleaned this up. I brought some of the rock and gravel that I cleared off of the parking lot in
the area where the handicapped parking was.
I took care of that place. Unlike my other candidates who were around, they just, they just candidized
in their chair for the most time. So at any rate, it's been alleged that I have violated several, several
items according to Karen Wheeler
and as written up in the and could I see some sort of a timer so I know where my ten minutes are? I'm
not going to turn and look at this. I'm sorry. I need to see something where I'm looking this way. I
can give you an audible alarm if you'd like, Mr. Davis. At what time would you like me to like a one
minute warning and a 30 minute second warning? At five minutes, three minutes, one minute,
30 seconds and zero. Okay, and can we please back up the clock a little bit for this housekeeping? No,
we're moving on. Okay, first off, I wanna say that Penny Givens should recuse herself from sitting on
the board and someone else should fulfill her role because she,
is a biased individual who is not going to give me a fair hearing, especially she has had a hand in
two of these alleged allegations coming from Karen Wheeler. One of those is the sign. She was scrutinizing
my sign incredibly. She and the other whispering cabal, which is what I call them, Karen Wheeler, Penny
Givens, Tree, Martin Lucas,
There was another woman with frizzy gray hair. She was in one of those videos. Another guy, they were
always whispering about me while I was cleaning up around the place and obviously was trying to conspire
and come up with what they could do to bring me down because they are scared, especially after got 21%
of the vote, which is very good for a first time primary candidate.
You have five minutes remaining. Okay. So anyway, she scrutinized my sign, this sign right here. Okay.
And said that it is not compliant with the disclaimer. I'm sorry, but this is compliant with the disclaimer.
According to this
And it is actually, this is more like. It's way bigger than, I don't know, it's like a 60. Now just
an example. But this is the example. They have the same size one right here. By Joe.
since they paid me. It says paid by Joe. Okay. It says paid by Joe. This is the new one. I see that.
This is the old one. This was approved last election. I ran as a rival. Okay. And I put these stickers
on their last election. The picture that I received
It doesn't even say who took the picture as long as well as the videos. It didn't say anything about
the videos. That's one thing. Okay, so back to these issues. All right. Penny should recuse herself
or there should be an alternate. You have three minutes remaining. Okay.
Penny should recuse herself. There needs to be a different alternate because she also too accosted me
on the early voting day when I was telling voters that I am a practicing jurist at law, at law. I have
filed into eight causes or filed into eight different cases
Seven of those are my own cases, three of them gone to appellate court. I am a practicing jurist at
law. You are looking at just a smattering of my files right here, my law books. Many more, twice this
amount of law books are at home. Three times actually, I just brought some of them that are most relevant,
because I'm working on filing for the appellate court right now that's due today. Okay.
I am a practicing jurist at law. I never misrepresented myself. And Penny Givens stood there and told
me every time I said that, she was gonna stand right next to me and she was going to tell those people
that I was misrepresenting myself. When I told her what it said in Black's Law Dictionary, what a jurist
is, a jurist is a person who knows where to find the law and knows
how to find the case law that gives its finer detail, and that is what I am. I am a trained jurist at
law, and I have been practicing. I have now over 6,000 hours as a pro se litigant, as a self counsel.
I am here as my own counsel before you today. So it continues. Okay, so Karen Wheeler,
wrote that you have one minute remaining. Okay, Karen Wheeler wrote that I had been that I had been
talking with voters after leaving the voting
That's true, I have many friends who I talked to and walked with after they left. There were also people
who I missed who didn't go in and I wanted to make sure they knew who I was because I want them to vote
for me in the fall and so I broke no violations. One of the video in there, another video in there according
to shows that I am sweeping in the shoot area, yes,
That was after a bunch of debris and grass after a rain had fallen. I also did some pruning, but that
was before 8 a.m., before the polls opened. So there was no evidence in there of me running through
the chute or doing anything like that. How much time? That's the expiration of your time. Okay, one
more thing I want to say is that
I have witnesses that I wish to bring forward and they're going to need some time here. I would like
to confront Karen Wheeler. I would like to confront Tree Martin Lucas because she took at least one
of the videos and Karen Wheeler wrote these statements and so I want to ask her where
She got her information, and I want to ask who took the, and talk to whoever took this picture of my
sign. I need to be able to be allowed to confront my accusers or speak with them so we can get more
clear information about what is being alleged here. Mr. Davis, just a second, please. You may not completely
understand what we're doing here today, and I don't understand that.
What we're doing today is determining whether or not there is cause for us to push this along to a different
level of people that work on it. We are not in a position to make a finding of guilt nor innocence of
any of this, nor are we in a position to determine whether some fines or something would happen. We
are not in that position. We are not in a position to have to cross-examine witnesses here. That was
part of what we talked about earlier.
If I may Mr. Chair. Mr. Davis in the procedures adopted it says that evidence or argument presented
by the party should be directed at the election board and not other parties present at the hearing.
The procedures also afford a ten minute time frame for the candidate and complainant to offer evidence
and argument so unless the board would like to afford additional time to Mr. Davis as I think that is
what he is requesting
the presentation of witnesses would have been within that 10 minutes presentation. Go ahead and ask
the question when the date and time. I'm assuming Mr. Davis signed for the paperwork that was served.
I would have to check with the legal office if we got the green card back on the certified mailing,
but I do believe that we did. I mailed the letter on the 15th.
I raised that because. May the letter does specifically state that the hearings at June 4th, 2026 beginning
at 130 that that was exactly my point. Mr Davis in terms of. No one is trying to impede your right to
bring evidence, call witnesses or anything like that, but we all had notice that the meeting started
at 130 today. And so.
you took time, you were not here when the resolution was read. Had you come when the notice was given,
you would have heard the rules, so to speak, for today's hearing. So to kind of hold that over us feels
a little disingenuous to me.
Yeah, I think that's fair. May I interject though? I tried this morning to get a hold of the agenda
from County Legal. They directed me to Kylie Ferris. I went to Kylie and I asked her for the agenda
and she directed me back to Molly and
And so I, without having the agenda, I had no idea when my presentation would be. If this were, I assume
this was a standard election board meeting and there would be business to take care of. I didn't understand
that this is, it sounds like it's a special election board meeting. Then it's not a regular election
board meeting.
This is our regular meeting. This is our regular meeting. Okay. And we have and we voted at our meeting
when we certified the election results was at the time to just do the hearings today at the regular
meeting. So that was that has been May 15. Thank you that so May 15 that was made efficient. Okay, but
that but that no agenda was produced at that time.
I, as a presenter, had no idea about how the proceedings would be. I'm trying to understand. I wish
this morning to understand more fully how long this hearing would be because I knew that I would need
a substantial amount of time, not just 10 minutes, because this is very complicated. I am being accused
of potential
potential crimes, misdemeanors, felonies, fines, this is serious. And it seems like this is just a bunch
of trumped up stuff to kind of stop my current campaigning, honestly.
But I, again, I need, I ask kindly for some more time so that I can speak with Karen Wheeler and Penny
Martin Lucas. And actually Penny Givens, I would like to speak with Penny Givens as well. You're running
all around with, I made it very plain a moment ago.
Our job today is to determine whether or not we believe there's a substantial reason for us to push
this along to either the state police or the attorney excuse me the prosecutor and to some extent maybe
the attorney the state attorney general to determine whether or not election law violation occurred.
It's sweeping the sidewalk maybe a little
obtuse to what normally happens, sure, but it's not illegal. However, if indeed there were signs that
don't meet the requirement for the signs, that, sir, is illegal. And our job is to determine whether
or not we want to send this along for an investigation by those who are professional investigators.
I taught sixth grade. I'm well, I guess it was an investigator occasion that way, but I'm not a professional
investigator. OK, go ahead. If I may, Mr. Chair, for clarity, today's hearings being held pursuant to
Indiana Code 365 31, which is the investigation of election law violations. That code section says that
if a county election board determines there's substantial reason to believe an election law violation
has occurred, it shall make an investigation.
That's what you voted to do at the last hearing. In the judgment of the board, after affording due notice
and opportunity for a hearing, a person has engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice that
constitutes or will constitute a violation of a provision of this title, that title being the election
code, or a rule or order issued under this title, the board shall take the action it considers appropriate
under the circumstances, including referring the matter to the attorney general or the appropriate
prosecuting attorney. I'm reading that statute because I don't
It allows you to refer to the prosecutor or the attorney general or to law enforcement. But it says
whatever board action the board thinks is appropriate. Options are to say there's nothing here and it's
dead. Or we think there might be something here and we want to run it up the flagpole, as it were, to
people who make these decisions on a professional basis. Is that where we are? Those would be the options
of the board. That makes sense to you.
Mr. Chair, if I may go ahead with a couple of things, Mr. Davis, typically it is the election supervisor
does present make up the agenda for the board. She will reach out to each board member to say this is
what I have. And it follows a standard order calling to order old business, new business, things like
that. Typically, that does happen that the agenda this for this meeting was not made.
by the election supervisor. We learned two days ago, two days yesterday. We were waiting. I asked Kylie,
I said, I don't see an agenda. I had checked my email. I didn't see an agenda. And I said, can you just
do the standard one? But after our office closed it for we received the agenda for
today's meeting, so you're not receiving notice has nothing to do with my office because the election
supervisor did not. My second thing to you, the meeting started at 1.30 today. You were served notice.
We went over the rules of the road, so to speak, at 1.30. Had you been here as we were adopting the
resolution for that, we probably could have negotiated
more time for you. You get 10 minutes for each complaint and there's two complaints today. We could
have negotiated if you were like, I can't do it in 10 minutes for each case. I need 15. Do you understand
what I'm saying? We could have negotiated. You were not here. We call the meeting to order. We had no
idea even if you were coming because you were not in the audience or close by, we ended up being told that
it appeared you were coming in the front door. So we wanted to work with you. You were not here at 1.30
to work with us. Does that make sense to you? I'm very sorry. I had trouble printing over at the mill
and I got here as soon as I could. I had no telephone contact to reach out to anyone to announce my
late arrival. I'm very sorry. We still can negotiate this. It's not too late to negotiate for more time.
It sounded like you said there were two counts or charges or complaints and so there's 10 minutes. I
have 10 minutes for each complaint. That is correct. This is the first one. This is the first one. Which
I'm sorry. That was not
Explain to me. Earlier in the proceeding we called the hearing to order for the complaint filed by Ms.
Wheeler and that is the hearing that we're currently in. Once this hearing closes the board will determine
how to resolve that complaint and then open the hearing on the second complaint by Ms. McGarry. I would
like to make a motion
that we continue this hearing to one week from now so that these rules have some time to be applied
and also to such that I could submit a written documentation
to support my arguments, especially now that I know that I need to, I have to prepare two cases. One
case against the first complaint and now another case against the second complaint. It seems like it
would be appropriate for me to be able to have at least one week to be able to work on each individual
complaint. There's nothing in the original
a letter that says that I'm going to be presenting my argument against two complaints individually.
It's looked as if everything was just going to be lobbed together. This must have happened before. Aren't
there procedures or policies that could have been shared with me? Mr. Chair, may I?
request that we get the proof of service. I can ask my office to bring it up. I do believe that we received
proof of service back on May 21st. But if you give me a few seconds, I can run down and get it. That
would be great because so we will recess until you can get back up here with it.
I have in front of me the signed, I'm sorry, I'm gonna call us back, I'm so sorry, I should do it first.
I have in front of me the signed receipt for the certified mail with this copy dated 5-21-26. And as
I'm looking through it, it's the exact same, can you see it ma'am? It's the exact same thing that we
have in front of us.
So it would appear, sir, that you were given this and signed for it, including the code, the Indiana
code on May 21st. So, Mr. Chair, my point in that is that if he signed for that on May 21st, do you
remember that that you signed? Yes, I do. But I was not I did not receive any evidence at that time.
I only received the allegations.
The evidence that I received came from, whoops, from Molly just here. Okay, again, I think you're confusing
this as a hearing versus a court proceeding. We're having a hearing to decide if we believe there is
sufficient cause
evidence, and I hate to use the term in this, but sufficient reason for us to push these along to the
organizations that make these decisions. So that's where we are. So that's why we don't need, the people
that make the complaint get to speak, you get to speak, we make that in a succinct 10 minutes issue,
which I think is plenty of time,
For this if we were in a court of law and you needed three days that's between you and the lawyers and
the judge That's not where we are
Mr. Chair, and if I may for clarity, the letter sent to Mr. Davis does advise that there were videos.
It says additionally there are videos provided to the election board along with the complaint. Please
let County Legal know how you would like to receive a copy of these videos. The videos can either be
emailed to you and or provided on a flash drive. On May 27th I had not heard from Mr. Davis so I did
provide an email copy of the videos and then Mr. Davis did subsequently stop into the legal department
and I provided him a jump drive or a flash drive.
So for me, Mr. Davis, there was more than sufficient opportunity for you to reach out to an attorney
if you wanted representation to, it's clear in the letter to me that you, that there were two complaints
because parties are named in the letter. And so between May 21st, when you signed for it up to one o'clock today,
You had that opportunity if you wanted to make clear to the board. Or to the county attorney that you
required additional time, you were expecting you anticipated. And none of that happened prior to so.
Our time is as valuable as your time. He started this meeting on time, all the meeting to order.
resolution was read and accepted, and you would have been here to negotiate more time. I don't think
we're unreasonable. I think if you said 10 minutes is not enough, I need 15. I think that that was a
discussion, but that discussion would have happened at 130. Does that make sense to you? Given the fact
that I wasn't presented, I also just learned that
Karen Wheeler also, she already presented her evidence alleging that I was in violation. And so I have
not heard that. I have not been able to ask her of any questions. Obviously, it's very important that.
We are not cross-examining, number one. Number two, since she was the one with the complaint,
Her 10 minutes came to file at first. Had you been in here, you would have been able to listen to her
complaint. That's my point. I'm sorry, sir, this Poor, Poor Me stuff is not wearing well with me. I
appreciate what's happening here, but I'm like, everybody in here was here at 1.30. You chose not to
be for whatever reason.
I go back to some people saying, on time is 10 minutes late. And you make your own choice with that.
But truthfully to me, you're not helping your case right now. You're just not. I mean, our decision
is whether or not we believe there's sufficient reason to believe that a violation of state, I guess
we wouldn't get to federal law, state election code was committed.
I have different feelings personally on some of these will do this as a board. A required disclaimer,
state law. I mean, it's we don't have an option with that. If it's not there, it's not there. OK,
I mean, and the fact that some guy printed it said this is the legal thing. If it's not legal,
it's not legal. And Mr. So ahead.
Mr. Chair, I want to be clear that I understood at the beginning that if we have questions for him,
that does not count against his 10 minutes. We could now ask questions and he could respond, and that
would not be against 10 minutes. That's correct. Go ahead, if you have a question, ask that.
I don't want to belabor some of these, but for the instance where you've clearly brought saying that
you were doing landscaping, number one, I'm hopeful that you know that my office is not responsible
for the groundskeeping of Election Central. But number two, I checked with my election supervisor during
the recess to confirm. We never received a complaint that there was any kind of impediment to voters accessing
election central in the early voting site we never received a complaint that you couldn't get into the
door as you have alluded to in another public meeting I was there every day more than once some days
to and I never had an impediment getting into the building I never received a complaint my office never
received a complaint and I want to ask you directly did you make a complaint to someone about the landscaping
prior to utilizing the evidence you've
presented to us today. I'm sorry. Your question was, did you? I never received a complaint. I am not
aware of anyone in my office ever receiving a complaint that there were landscaping issues because I
could have made a call to the people that are responsible for the grounds keeping. I never received
a complaint. I'm asking, did you make a complaint to anyone? Because as you know, I take very seriously, um,
your inference that voters had impediment issues getting into and accessing the early voting site? Did
you make a complaint to anyone because I did not get one? Yes, I wouldn't call it a complaint. I addressed
the landscaping concerns with Richard Kreider, who is in charge of
you know, fleet and the buildings for the county, and also spoke with the young gentleman who takes
care of the landscape there. Typically, I just spoke with Richard Kreider yesterday again about this,
and at that time, normally,
The county Richard has nature's way to ongoing landscape maintenance at all but because of the construction
that had taken place and there was the New hardscaping. I don't know if you've seen the parking lot.
It looks awesome I mean I cleaned up so much gravel and debris there where it was unsafe in the for
the handicapped parking but but
I worked with the young gentleman who did the mowing and I helped him sweep back the grass clippings
and after the storms brought down branches and they were hanging into the way. Then I asked the young
gentleman again if he could prune that and then Richard came by and he snapped off a branch to get it
out of the way.
And but he snapped it off. He didn't cut it. So I told him that I would come back and Make a clean cut
with my loppers so that the branch would heal You know instead of having a splintered end and so then
that next morning I did come back at about 740 and I pruned out those
a few dead branches and things like that, and then was sweeping up then. So I just wanted to, you know,
like that was the, I just bring this up because I didn't feel that it was necessary to contact your
office to maintain the area around the building.
that's not your responsibility. I contacted Richard Kreider directly. He's the man who sends out the
directives then. That's the reason why. And so I bring this up because in one of the videos that was
presented,
which alleges that I was in the shoot, you know, electioneering, I'm clearly just walking with my broom
and sweeping, and I wanted to show why I had these tools with me all the time, trying to make it safe.
Molly, does the Indiana code about electioneering inside the shoot say a candidate is not allowed to
be inside the shoot
Unless they are cleaning the side. And my point being, if it says she can't be in there, doesn't see
it says can't be in there in the story. You can't be in there. You can't be in there. The the law. That's
why I'm asking the law itself. I'm asking our attorney. There are three separate statutes that I think
are applicable to the shoot.
The first one is Indiana Code 314.316, which does involve electioneering within 50 feet of the polls.
Electioneering, by statute, means a verbal statement displaying a written statement or indicating support
or opposition to a candidate, political party, or public question appearing on the ballot or wearing
or displaying an article of clothing, sign, button, or placard that states the candidate's name. And
then it lists out what constitutes electioneering.
and it says a person who knowingly does any electioneering on election day within the polls or the shoot
before election day within the office of the circuit court clerk or satellite office of the court fifty
feet of the entrance to the office uh... except for a voter who is and then it lists out exceptions
and that would be a class eight misdemeanor so no you cannot electioneer in the shoot however there
are two other separate statutes that pertain to
presence in the shoot. So Indiana code 314 315 is entitled unauthorized person entering into or remaining
near the polls. A person not authorized by this title who recklessly enters the polls enters within
the railing leading from the challenge window or door to the entrance of the polls without having been
passed by the challengers or having been sworn in or remains within the polls or within the shoot in
violation of 311 815 311 816 commits a class C
infraction and then there's language on how it gets enhanced to a misdemeanor. Indiana code 311816 is
entitled persons allowed in and around poll shoots. A person may not remain within a distance equal
to the length of the shoot as defined by Indiana code of the entrance of the polls except for the purpose
of offering to vote. And so there are statutes that pertain to electioneering in the shoot but there
are separate statutes that pertain to presence in the shoot alone.
So Mr. Chair, my point being as the board may recall, Mr. Crider was coming to regular election board
meetings and offering updates for what was going on with respect to getting election central ready for
early voting. He was very thorough, very competent, and I never once recall his saying that there were
landscaping issues and grounds keeping issues that would hinder a voter's ability to access again.
I was there every day, sometimes more than once per day, and I did not observe anything like that. It
also concerns me that anyone would take it upon themselves, rather than report the concern, would take
it upon themselves, because that would bring liability. They could have gotten hurt, and then the county
would have been liable for them getting hurt on county property.
That's my point about that. And I know that you want to move on and I have. Well, Kylie, did you get
our early voting workers? Let's just nicely say I've been around the sun a few times. Did they any of
them give you any complaints about it being difficult to get into work? No, zero. No. OK. I would like
to add that's because I took care of business.
Point noted. Yes, ma'am. At this point, I would like just that we close the hearing on this complaint
and hold our board deliberation so that we. I can complain. I would like to make a motion. No, sorry, sorry.
I don't like to be in exclusive clubs very often with this is an exclusive club of three right now.
I would, I'll second that, that we move, we discuss and then decide where to go. Ashley, would you call
the roll since this is what we're doing, please? Thank you. Okay. Ashley, go ahead.
Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Gibbs? Yes. So again, to clarify what we're doing, we decide
whether or not we believe there is sufficient evidence that a law may have been violated and should
we move it to an investigative body to make a decision as to whether or not they think charges should be filed.
Is that a succinct enough? I think I can simplify looking at IC 365 31. The board can one take no action
on the complaint if you believe that in this case Miss Wheeler did not prove her allegations. You could
forward it to the prosecutor who then inevitably will forward it to the state police, I believe. So
you could just say forward it to the prosecutor or you could.
Admonish issue an admonishment to the candidate and do nothing further. The statute is really broad
in the language. It says take the action to the board considers appropriate under the circumstances.
Might I suggest we do? I was thinking so, yeah, that was my thought was one at a time. I mean, so do
you want me to read the first one? Well, you know,
Do you have any thoughts before we go into that, ma'am? I'll say them until we get to each other. Okay.
Okay. But we've all got them. So in my belief, in my view, we do have enough to move on with the disclaimer
on the signs, just because I don't think it meets the code.
I'm sorry. The disclaimer on the signs. I don't believe I question whether it meets the code. And I
would like someone who someone else to make that determination. Someone who makes that on their own.
Jeremy White Rabbit said that you could you could talk to him. Jeremy White Rabbit does not make this
decision. The prosecutor or the state police will make this decision.
You may be a wonderful person. I have no idea. It's not your turn to talk, sir. I would especially like
for it to be pointed out that both sides of a sign must have that disclaimer if they are presented to
the public. And as I look at the sign at the table there right now that says write in Joe Davis, there's
no disclaimer on the side that says write in Joe Davis.
So I hope that they, excuse me, sir, I'm speaking. I would like to put it on record that we asked that
whoever reviews this, review that specific sign for its. So is that, well, okay. When we've had sign
complaints,
previous incarnations of the election board have had signed complaints. The candidate was given
an opportunity to put the disclaimer on there. It appears to me that that's what he is saying that he
did. Can you turn your sign around? Her point is that it's not on both sides. I see this. Can you turn
it around so we can see if you put it on both sides? Can we see the backside of that sign, please?
This sign, I removed the old stickers because of the rain was on there. I just put new stickers, new
stickers and new, see how this is updated? This is an example of what we're asking you to see is the
backside of this. I didn't want to cover this up so that you can see what it looked like before.
That's all. This is a new, this sign wasn't at early. This was not, okay, but. This is an example. I
brought this in as an example.
So your contention is that both sides of any sign that was at Election Central had this on each side?
If it was a sign that was going to be visible from both the front and the back, yes, I did. I did do
both sides. I only brought this today as an example of what it looked like. But all my other signs,
after all the rain, the paper came off and I slowly replaced
started to replace them. Now is that the one under the QR code that says paid for by Joe? Yes. Okay
now for me and I'm a woman getting older by the day the paid for by Joe does not appear to be something
that would stand out so that you could distinguish it you have to be able to to read that and so me
walking by that sign to go in and vote
I would not be clear that it was paid for by Joe. This is very visible. But do you see my point under
your QR code? Yes, but it is much larger than 12 point. The law says that it needs to be 12 point or
it says that it can be seven point if there's high contrast between the background caller and the new
caller. And I'm saying I don't see the high contrast.
That's why I say I took both. I can show you, if you put this right next to the paid for by Joe, the
font size is exactly the same. I'm not disputing the font size. Well, what I'm trying to say is this
is much larger font technically than what the state law requires. If you look at other candidate signs, they're
paid for by the committee to elect whatever it's very very small very small. The thing is nobody filed
a complaint against their side so that's that's a point that is so. But also election law says that
the contrast has to occur. If I may
Yes, board. The hearing was closed at this point. So this is board deliberation. So I don't know if
you're right. Thank you. Opening the reopening the hearing minutes ago. Sorry. You said this five minutes
ago. Throw throw something at me if you need to. Well, then my my deliberation for the board in the
same way you could not put Navy blue black, a black background, because who would be able
to differentiate or distinguish that, then I am concurring that there is at least some evidence that
the required, the statute for the required disclaimer have not been met. I concur. I suggest that we
forward that for. Okay, are we doing just number one right now? Yes. So do we have a motion that we,
I think you can simplify it and do one motion and just identify that you would like to forward the complaint
to the prosecutor and numbers one, three. OK, fine. That works. I think it's technically one complaint.
She's just subcategories in a sub. OK, so numbers one, two, three. OK, so going forward and it's either
yes or no. OK, they decide. You mean on all four of them? I'm perfectly fine doing it with just doing
all four at once.
And so a motion would be. If should it go to the prosecutor or does this go to the state police if we're
going to move it forward? I think you could make a motion to for the complaint for further investigation
to the prosecutor and then if the prosecutor's office wishes to send it to the state police, which I
believe they will, that would be their decision. Moved.
Any other discussion? I don't know if you caught that, Ashley, but the clerk seconded it. Her mic didn't
light up. That's the only reason I said that. So yeah, Ashley, would you call the roll? OK, let me make
sure what we're voting on. We are voting to send the complaint to the prosecutor's office to determine
whether or not the prosecutor wants to send it on to the appropriate authority, most likely the state police.
Yes, that would be. That's what a motion is. OK, now, Ashley, please. Nicole Brown. Yes. Danny Shields.
Yes. Penny Giddens. Yes. So now we will open. Second one with. Some of Gary. Oh, yeah, so we're going to let.
So the hearing regarding the complaint for Ms. McGarry is now open by the chair. We received an email
to summarize this complaint an email correspondence was received I'm trying to look up the date but
an email correspondence was provided
a written note by Ms. McGarry and the note indicates that Ms. McGarry came to vote on April 30th about
1.15 p.m. and she had walked from the handicapped space in the lot and was approached as I reached the
corner of the building. I was approached by candidate for clerk Joe Davis who talked quickly and at
length and I tried to continue walking
I'm sorry, Ms. McGarry, I'm having difficulty reading your handwriting and that's a total me issue.
Would you like me to do that? I made a living reading this kind of handwriting. I mean, I don't even
know if you want to read the complaint. In essence, we received the complaint. The board has received
the copy of the complaint. Mr. Davis has received a copy of the complaint and the complaint details
Ms. McGarry's interaction with Mr. Davis. Unless you have
questions on that summary, procedurally we can move to having the complainant offer testimony. I think
that's a great idea. Before I administer an oath, Ms. McGarry, is it easier for you to offer testimony
from there without standing at the podium? Well, we're going to need you to pick it up on mic, but I
can make this easier. Look, it's moving. OK, Ms. McGarry,
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide to the board will be truthful? Yes,
I do. So I'm not. I mean. Do you want me to repeat what I wrote? I don't know necessarily repeating
it is needed. I just. Since you've told us in your own words, what happened? Would you just?
I hate to elaborate a little bit for us. I would be glad to. He did not. He approached me after I got
out of my car. I parked in the handicapped. This is prior to voting prior to voting. Thank you and and
he. I felt like he'd latched himself onto me was telling me his background and
telling me a lot of terrible things about the clerk's office and why it needed new blood and so forth.
And I kept saying, I don't want to talk to you. But he followed me around the corner toward the entrance
to the building. And I finally somehow got disconnected.
And he immediately went over to a tall man standing there and started to talk to him. And that man turned
his back to him. And he went to a shorter man in a little polo shirt and started talking to him. So
he was talking to him when I walked into the building. As soon as I walked into the building, I made
a complaint because I felt
I felt it was inappropriate to be on my way. I think she called it the shoot. And being approached so
insistently by a candidate.
After I voted, and I was told a lot of people were complaining, they weren't sure what they could do
about it. But I voted, and before I left, she asked if I would mind writing a statement. And the statement,
as was read, I was voting at the end of early voting, so a lot of your conversation was
what was going on at the beginning. But when I drove, when I left the building after writing my statement,
got in my car and drove to the exit to the street, he was still talking to the same short man in the
polo shirt. Clearly the man wanted him to talk to him.
I still felt it's right outside the steps to the building. And saying the things to this man that he
was saying to me, it was definitely electioneering. Are you asserting it was inside the shoot area?
Do you do you remember seeing where the shoot was marked off? The shoot was not marked off as far as
I could tell. But this was
This was within two feet of the steps into the building. Do you feel intimidated by Mr. Davis?
Very much. I felt trapped. I'm a regular voter. I used to be a poll worker.
This was just something I had never seen or experienced before. May I just clarify two feet from you?
You left your car. You walked toward the east entrance of Election Central. Yes. Two feet of the door
or two feet from the curb.
Do you see what I'm saying? He approached me in the park while I was still beside the parking lot and
walked with me till the point where I turned the corner of the building to go up the steps. Turn the
corner of the building. So like I said, the chute was not marked, but
So I don't know where the shoot was or wasn't. Well, unless it was raining, had rained up the marks,
then the shoot was marked. Correct. Every day. So it may have been, that would indicate to me that probably
it was for what we would consider the shoot area. Where did the shoot start? 50 feet from the door.
Basically, when you came out of... Oh, he was talking to me well within 50 feet of the door. So because
the candidates...
are outside of the 50 feet. Yes. So you're saying that when he was speaking with you, you had passed
all of the other candidates running for office. I didn't see any other candidates running for office.
The day that you had the day that you came, there were no other candidates. And I didn't see any other
signs. But I came from the parking lot. Signs may have been along the street. I don't know. They both
wait. But the
So the signs would. So you're saying I didn't see any signs. I didn't see any people. Except him,
except him. And so for me, I'm trying to figure out how close she was to the door at the time. And it
sounds to me like you're saying you were closer to the door than not. If he's saying 50 feet is the
shoot, I was well within 50 feet. The shoot started
Kylie, correct me. Roughly. 10 or 12 feet from the actual door to the building. Because we had that
space that that inner space OK, so it would have been 50 feet from the door. I would say it was probably
10 feet from the edge of the curb to where that 50 foot line would have started. But let's also be clear
there were some signs that we were authorized to have there. The directional signs correct?
Mm hmm. And that had been a whole thing where it was with this. There was to the to the left. I don't
know how to describe it. It looked like a flower cart or something. OK, so were you were you closer
to the door than the flower cart? Because I remember so closer to the door than the flower cart would
be within the 50 feet. We all remember. Remember the flower. A blonde lady
by the flower cart. I don't know who she was. We've got a timer. We've done our 10 minutes, correct?
Okay, all right. No. We haven't? Okay, you started. Yeah, I started the timer. Sorry. That's timing.
That's climbing up. I do have another question for Ms. McGarry, but also thank you for in the past working
as a poll worker. It's appreciated by all of us, I'm sure. Did you feel like
Mr. Davis impeded you from actually even exiting your vehicle. No, he was. He came toward me after I
got out of my car. But that was the handicapped spaces were certainly not within what you're calling
the correct. Yeah.
I'm more concerned about the potential for voter intimidation than I am for whether or not it was actually
inside the shoot. I'm in agreement with you on that. Is there anything else you want to add? No, no.
Then start to 10 start Mr Davis is 10 minutes. Sorry, go ahead. It's not started yet. Before we do that,
Miss Ferris did provide testimony.
during that hearing, so I'm just going to ask her, was the oath that you were previously administered
in the first hearing, were you adhering to that oath during this hearing? Yes. All right. Mr. Davis,
I'm going to ask you the same question. In the previous hearing, you were administered an oath to tell
the truth. Do you swear or affirm you're going to adhere to that oath during this hearing as well? Yes,
I do. Continue. I'll continue to swear to tell the truth. Thank you.
And then we start before we start the timer. Do you still want the same five three one thirty second
warning? Well, I would like to be able to address some questions toward Ms. McGarry, if I may.
Because well, one thing you can cross examine here, you have 10 minutes there. We start the clock to
state your side of the issue.
There's a, well first, I think it's important that we first recognize which handicapped parking spots
Ms. McGarry was at because there were handicapped parking spots that were on Morton Street itself, but
there were some handicapped parking spots that were in the parking lot. So that might help clear up.
We're not being accused
being in the chute, electioneering in this complaint. So which parking spaces it happened to be really
wouldn't seem to matter. The complaint is that you were annoying, which is not illegal, but were just
somewhat intimidating to someone in the parking lot who was attempting to vote. Is that a correct assumption?
and we understand that. That's not. Okay, all right. Are you ready? Mr Davis, do you want the 531 minute
32nd warning? When your timer starts, OK, all right, and then TSD is putting the timer up now. And it
goes you may begin. OK,
The 30th was Thursday. This was the last, this was a Thursday before voting would take place on the
following Tuesday, so I'm very sorry, Ms. McGarry, if you felt intimidated by my approaching the voters
on that day, but they, voters were coming fast and furious. It was, all I could do
to look out and see which groups of people were walking from the parking lot area. And so I would go
and approach those people. Hello, are you here to vote? May I please introduce myself? My name is Joe
Davis and I'm running for County Clerk for the Circuit Court. As a practicing jurist at law, I filed
into or been a witness in half of the courtrooms in the Justice Building. I filed into Owen and Greene
County Courts.
as I've filed through both online and in person, I've seen where the blind spots are. I've seen where
small mistakes compound and then are quite burdensome to remove. So therefore, as clerk, I will put
into place measures, checks, systems to guarantee greater accuracy in the filings. And I will also institute
an outgoing email and text message to anyone
who comes in to make a filing or make a payment and this simple message will say, hey, please double
check your filing for accuracy because if we get everything taken care of, the courts, the clerk's office
and life for the Monroe County voter will be
much more efficient. That was basically my message and I whipped through that, whipped through that,
whipped through that so many times. I know that I wasn't saying anything negative about the clerk's
office. I was just saying that I was going to ensure greater accuracy and I told this over and over
and over again to voters as they came through the entire period and at that time
I had it down to like 20 seconds, 25 seconds, boom, boom, boom. And then I moved on to the next person.
So I'm very sorry I was speaking so quickly at that time, but I was trying to get my message out and
it was very simple. And then I would move on to the next person. So I'm very sorry. Some of those other
people who I talked with, as you mentioned, the man in the polo shirt, he enjoyed to talk with me so
much that we continued to talk.
That doesn't mean that I was annoying to other people. Some people were very engaged, I'm so sorry,
out of maybe speaking with 1,000 people, you were the one person who complained. I would like to know
who asked you to make this statement. That would be very informative. Who asked you to make that statement?
Sorry, you're not allowed to talk to her. And probably. Gee, you hope somebody would send that to you.
Probably Tree Martin Lucas was the person near my flower cart.
because at that time she was setting up her chair right next to it. So the blonde haired person was
probably Tree. But at any rate, I approached many voters. I did not speak negatively about the clerk's
office. I spoke only how I had a plan to improve it and that was my message. It was simple and that's
why I got 21% of the vote.
Again, I am so sorry that you were intimidated. I apologize for that. I have learned, this was my first
primary, I have learned a lot about reading people. Eyes here or there? Okay, here or there? So I am
very sorry if I was annoying. 999 people were not annoyed. Next year,
Next election, I'm gonna make sure 100% of the people are not annoyed. And if they are annoyed, I'm
going to personally apologize to them and try to figure out how I can serve them better. So how are
we doing on time? You have five minutes and 41 seconds. Okay, all right. So I think that, I think that,
complaint sure it is valid, but this seems like it was gathered up by this, I'm gonna call them the
whisper cabal, which again was Penny Givens, Tree Martin Lucas, Karen Wheeler. All of these whispers were
just looking for any excuse they could to make a complaint about me because I was a successful forward
candidate. As we moved toward the end of the early voting period, I was catching up to Tree Martin Lucas.
I was getting those votes. If early voting went on for another month, I don't know, maybe I would have
caught up all the way. But essentially,
Essentially, I am about service. That's why I run as a candidate, because I'm trying to improve the
situation wherever I go, wherever I go. I know things can be improved. And I'm very sorry if sometimes
toes get stepped on, but change happens when people act, when they make change.
things don't change when people sit on their hands. So sometimes change makers feel threatening to people,
but that's okay because it takes all of us to make the world go round. It takes all of us. So the question
that one must ask is why, why am I being
singled out in this manner, and that is because I believe, in my opinion, that this was supposed to
be a redemption election tour for Tree Martin Lucas and Karen Wheeler. We all know about how four years
ago there were 6,600 votes that were not included the last week's early voting, not included in the
vote total.
and Karen ended up resigning and Tree Martin Lucas resigned in support or I don't know. But this happened.
And as a candidate, if I were elected, I was going to ask Tree and Karen whatever job they wanted, they
could have it in my administration.
because I felt bad for them for that mishap. It was an honest mistake, I feel. Some people said maybe
it was nefarious, but I feel it was an honest mistake. And I believe that it's because I started to
all of a sudden seem like a true candidate that
the whispering cabal started to grow desperate and they started to speak amongst themselves, what can
we do to bring this guy down? Like the election signs, I mean, the paid for by Joe was fine, the previous
election, I don't know why it's being investigated again when it was okay before, but that's okay.
All right, I am still an independent candidate collecting signatures to get on the ballot for the fall
as clerk. And again, I'm going to speak to the voters. I'm gonna make sure that the early voting area
is up to snuff and safe for everyone. And Richard Kreider is going to
make sure that whatever my volunteer add or value add is going to fit in with the plan because they
are so understaffed over there and they need more people than the county affords them and they need
all the volunteer help they can get. So again, you know, I think what this comes down to is that this
was supposed to be
a redemption election for Tree Martin Lucas and Karen Wheeler and someone told me that Penny Givens
was gonna get a good job in the office too. So that's all fine and dandy. I want everyone to do the
best job they can but should I become the new clerk in the fall following the election, I'm gonna again
ask Tree whatever job you want, Karen Wheeler, whatever job you want,
because I know you'll do good work for the people because you have before and you will continue to do
so. All hands on deck. Thank you, sir. I feel bad not asking this question. Indiana has a sore loser
lock, correct?
And if that's the case, if you ran for clerk in a primary and did not win, you are not allowed to file
as an independent for that same office in that general election. People bring up the sword winner law.
I've heard this, yeah, the sword winner law establishes, well, tries to eliminate independents from
getting on the ballot. Or a loser law.
It's called the sore loser laws. The name of it. I'm just some people refer to it as the sore winner
law. Tomato tomato. That's not doesn't matter. You make your you go ahead. But I think you're going
to end up not being happy with the result of how that whole thing works. All right. What's that? We
need to move to deliberations, correct? Procedurally, is the board closing the hearing at this time?
Yes, I move that we
I'll close the hearing at this time. Second. You can voice vote. All in favor of closing the hearing?
Aye. Sorry, Ashley, we'll come back to you later. So if we are closed, I'm just going to quote the four
words directly from Mr. Davis. I agree.
As soon as we're finished with deliberation, I would be happy to make a motion. Okay. My question, and
this is the legal thing, okay. Is there a reasonably solid line or is it wavy and curvy between being
annoying and being intimidating and threatening?
Follow where I'm going. I mean, I understand the question is one thing. Threatening people or intimidating
them is something else. I'm going to try to look up the voter making sense to you guys. Whether or not
there was interference with somebody trying to get into to get into vote. I don't. Yeah, I don't disagree with you.
I see that. And this may be a thing that life experiences for you guys and me are different here. So
that maybe I'm looking at it from a different point of view. I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean,
I get that. While that's going on, may I ask Ms. Ferris one question? I think that I heard you say this,
but I'm not 100% sure that you did have other that you had complaints from other
voters about some of the behavior? Yeah, so there were multiple complaints that were made to our office.
Actually, in fact, this one once we started getting more and more, I was requesting individuals to write
them down. I do remember that Miss McGarry was brought into my office and I asked her to write this
statement down on writing so that I could then send it onto the election board so we could continue
making progress with this as after the first couple of conversations.
behaviors and actions were not changing. May I address, may I address that response? I don't think that
as much as you'd want. I don't think that's appropriate right now because we're in our deliberations.
Again, this is that early exclusive club of three.
It's one of those statutes that cross-references other statutes, so I promise I'm getting there, I think.
I think it says a person who knowingly or intentionally intimidates, threatens, or coerces an individual
for voting or attempting to vote, urging or aiding another individual to vote or attempt to vote or
exercising any power or duty under this title commits voter intimidation. But then you have to
Go and look what constitutes intimidates, threats, or coercion. Where I'm kind of arguing with myself
right now is you might feel intimidating to someone while you yourself don't feel you are being that.
But I am probably more inclined, since the prosecutor's going to look at the other ones anyway,
She could look at this and say, hey, you guys are weird and throw it, or there's something here. I think
she has a lot more experience with technology than I certainly do. Absolutely. I do think it's
a fact-sensitive inquiry.
I guess we would need a motion, yeah. I move that we forward Ms. McGarry's complaint to the prosecutor
for further. Any other discussion? Ms. Ashley. Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Hiddens? Yes.
I think now that we've made those motions that your office desk send this forward. I will forward the
complaints to the prosecutor's office. However, I do have a procedural question. I will provide the
complaints and any evidence that the board received from the complainants. Mr Davis did present evidence
and he has had the exhibit that you presented. Are you OK if I take pictures of this and send it along?
Or I don't know how to capture
your exhibits here. I'm assuming you don't want to leave them here and I don't want you to either. So
I would like to just take photos if the boards are okay with that and Mr. Davis is okay with
that. Absolutely. Yeah, that's absolutely fine. I assume you're going to need those things. I will.
I'll especially need the tools to continue to clean up for the early voting in the fall. All right.
So I will I will work with Mr. Davis on getting photos to send to the prosecutor as well of the exhibits
that he attached. And then I think that brings you back to the election board agenda. Which would be.
Public comment. Is it appropriate for me to ask for a public comment that would be germane to what we've
been working on in the sense? The fact is that we've
had quite a meeting and people have to go back to work. Or do we have to take public comment at this
time? Was it posted on the agenda? It was not posted on the agenda, and that is an error on my fault.
On my part, we do normally have public comment at the election board meetings, but for clarity, the
public comment would be not on. I understand. Pleasure of you board members.
I'm fine knowing that people are limited to three minutes. Okay, three minutes. There's public comment
for three minutes. Mr. Davis for clarity. Are you providing public comment at the current time? I'm sorry.
Are you providing public comment? We moved on. We've closed all the hearings and we moved on to public
comment. I'll move my stuff out of the way for public comment then. We were just trying to figure out
if you were commenting or not, but it sounds like the floor is in what the public comment on on anything
having to do with elections. Is that what we're? Yes. I mean, just anything in general.
Is that what? Well, we'd like it to be election related. We have someone in line who would like to speak.
I need to get the clock restarted. Restart the clock, please. Well, I could stop for a second. Don't
start it yet. Am I supposed to sign something? We'll deal with that.
Oh, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want my time to get ticked away, because I'm still waiting
to figure out what's happening here. I appreciate it. Cheryl Langdon, Monroe County taxpayer. This is
all about how our elections are pretty polarized. We need to have a conversation in the US. An 18-year-old
unarmed, alone Henry Novick,
was attacked in England six months ago. His assailant's brother called 911 and made a baseless claim
that Novak racially attacked him. When the police arrived, unarmed Henry was found dying of his stab
wounds. Henry had said, I have been stabbed. The attending police officer gaslit the dying victim saying,
I don't think so, mate.
Henry received no medical attention until it was clear that he was dying and by that time it was too
late. He was dying in handcuffs and was a victim of a racist attack. No one wants to admit this, but
his attacker, a Sikh man, falsely accused Henry of a racist attack against him by Henry that night which
misled police to treat unarmed Henry as an assailant rather than a victim.
The left refused to acknowledge Henry's victimization that occurred twice. Why? Because the victim is
white. The reason it's important to talk about the invasions that progressives created in European nations
like the UK and the United States is because our nations' white citizens are being discriminated against
for absolutely no reason.
In August of 2022, Brittany Farr released an essay on the University of Chicago Law website, Fears of
a Majority, Minority, Future Depreciating Value of Whiteness. Her essay failed to acknowledge the violence
against innocent white people all over the world. And in the United States, law enforcement reports
have also documented an increase in anti-white hate crimes during several recent reporting cycles, sometimes
accounting
for upwards 10 to 20 percent of reported race-based incidents. New York City's mayor, Mandani, continues
to use racially-charged language against white citizens concerning tax increases, quote, richer and
whiter neighborhoods, unquote. The mayor continues to use racially-charged language against white people
in his administration. It's amazing to me how non-white and white leftists are allowed to be openly
racist as long as it's against white people.
This must stop. Innocent white people are being targeted, assaulted, and many times murdered for being
white. The funding of hate groups by leftists has been exposed. It's not right-wing Republicans who
are choosing hate. Conservatives are just responding to the radical terrorists and invaders' violence
against white Christian people, both non-white
and white leftist progressive politicians have been provoking race hate. We have been thrown to the
wolves by our own countrymen. They have openly betrayed us, and I say shame on every Democrat. You have
helped create a race religious war. You have put a target on us all. Thank you. Thank you. Any other?
and I will make a motion to it. Oh, it's coming, okay. Go ahead, sir. Your three minutes will start.
Whenever they put it up there. There it is. Your time is running. Three minutes. Three minutes. Okay.
Can you please let me know one minute and 30 and then 30 seconds. Thank you.
I would like to ask that the election board look into instituting more transparency with procedures
like the one that we had today to make contact if there's an agenda that goes out that it's sent to
the person who has to come before the hearing body. That these things are done days in advance so that
one can prepare.
had I known that there was going to be just like lickety-split limitations on time placed today, then
I would have been preparing a presentation or argument that would be totally different from what I did
work toward because I didn't know any of the rules.
two complaints submitted to me at one time. It seemed like I was to address them both, but it never
said that I was to address them individually, that each one would have 10 minutes. It was never explained
that I couldn't speak to the other witnesses or ask any about the evidence that was being submitted,
who took it, why, and you know,
sure we're gonna move on to the prosecutor and I welcome this opportunity because then we'll go forward
and we'll hammer things out which will improve the system. That's the way it's gonna work out and I'm
gonna be vindicated. It's gonna waste a lot of time for everyone involved but I will be vindicated and
you will learn new procedures and hopefully in the future no one will be so
rudely dealt with like I've been dealt with today. But that's okay. We all can improve. I know that
every one of us in here tries to improve every day. So let's make this a civil environment and let's
make it transparent. Let's give everyone the full disclosure possible. This will be the best for everyone.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Prior to adjourning, um, the clerk brought to my attention that our next meeting is July
2nd and that the commissioners may not meet that day. If they did. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you heard
it. If the commissioners choose not to meet on July 2nd, uh, what would your pleasure be on us meeting
it in the morning instead of later in the afternoon on that day?
since this room should already be available. I don't. I believe there will be a commissioner meeting
on July 2nd. They've canceled the June meetings, but July is still scheduled normally. We can follow
through as to whether we actually need a meeting on that date being that close to today. At any
As long as we give notice, we can cancel that meeting. We'll, we'll, we'll communicate that through
your office. Okay. All right. Then I would entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn those in
favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Happy June.