Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Appointments And Ethics topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County party chairs ask Perry County for consistent interpretation of statute on partisan balance for board appointments

5399893 · July 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Local party leaders asked the commissioners to adopt a consistent approach after ambiguity in Indiana law led to inconsistent classifications of applicants' partisan affiliation for board appointments.

A representative of the Democratic Party asked Perry County commissioners to adopt a consistent interpretation of state law that governs party affiliation for certain board appointments, citing confusion around how an applicant's voting history should be used to determine partisan status.

"Whenever a law of political subdivisions resolution requires that an appointment to a board be conditioned upon the political affiliation of the appointee ... the two most recent primary elections in Indiana, which the appointee voted, were both primary elections held by the party," the Democratic Party representative read from the statute and identified it as Indiana Code 36‑1‑8‑110. He said he had contacted the Indiana Election Division for guidance and referenced Matthew Kochvar, co‑general counsel at the Election Division.

The Democratic Party representative urged the county and council to reach a common interpretation because inconsistent readings have led to apparent classification of some local board members as "independents" despite appointment records. He said county practice has sometimes used the party county chair's certification when a candidate has not voted in two primaries, and that third‑party affiliations present additional complications because some smaller parties do not hold primaries.

County officials and other commissioners acknowledged ambiguity in the statute and recommended the parties and county counsel work toward a common approach. Commissioners noted prior email advice from county counsel and earlier outreach to state officials that produced differing opinions and said the statutory language may need clarification.

The board did not take formal action at this meeting but asked staff and local party chairs to coordinate with counsel to determine a consistent local practice going forward.