A ballot dispute turned a three-vote lead for Spencer Deery into a three-vote victory for Paula Copenhaver. The ruling puts election procedures, not just campaign politics, at the center of one of Indiana’s closest primary contests.
Paula Copenhaver became the winner of Indiana Senate District 23 after a recount reversed the initial May primary result and defeated incumbent Republican state Sen. Spencer Deery. At a Monday hearing reported Tuesday, the Indiana Recount Commission invalidated eight ballots cast for Deery over missing required markings, flipping his three-vote lead into a three-vote win for Copenhaver.
The result matters because Indiana Senate District 23 was decided not by a broad shift in voter preference, but by the treatment of a handful of absentee ballots. Deery’s attorney says he plans to appeal, leaving the closely watched Republican primary dispute unresolved for now.
Eight ballots changed the outcome
Deery, a Republican from West Lafayette, entered the recount with a three-vote advantage over Copenhaver. That narrow margin made every challenged ballot consequential.
According to reporting by WRTV and WFYI, the commission rejected eight ballots cast for Deery. It also rejected two ballots cast for Copenhaver for the same deficiencies.
That difference is the key to the reversal. Removing eight Deery votes and two Copenhaver votes changed the margin by six votes: enough to move Copenhaver from three votes behind to three votes ahead.
The recount did not identify a new bloc of voters or change the overall electorate. It reconsidered whether specific ballots met the administrative requirements to be counted.
Why the ballots were rejected
Indiana law requires absentee ballots to carry the county clerk’s signature and seal, along with initials from both a Republican and a Democratic election judge, according to WRTV’s account of the hearing.
The ballots at issue reportedly lacked the clerk’s signature, one or both required sets of election-judge initials, or both. The commission concluded that those missing elements made the ballots invalid under the state’s rules.
That puts an uncomfortable but familiar election-law question at the heart of the case: when an election worker’s paperwork is incomplete, should the voter’s ballot be discarded?
Supporters of strict enforcement argue that the required signatures and initials are safeguards, creating a documented chain of custody and bipartisan confirmation. Critics argue that voters should not lose their vote because officials failed to complete ministerial steps.
Deery calls ruling unprecedented
Deery’s attorney, Samantha DeWester, said she was preparing an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. She characterized the decision as unprecedented and argued that ballots should not be discarded because a clerk’s signature is missing.
Deery also criticized the commission’s ruling in a statement reported by WFYI, saying it undermined the will of voters. He said he was confident an appellate court would restore the prior totals and affirm him as the winner.
Copenhaver, meanwhile, said after the proceeding that she was ready for the general election, according to WFYI. The commission’s decision currently makes her the Republican nominee, subject to any court action that follows.
Neither side disputes that the race was exceptionally close. Their disagreement is over what the law requires once a ballot has been cast but the election paperwork is incomplete.
A primary shaped by redistricting politics
The District 23 contest carries political weight beyond its small numerical margin. WRTV reported that Deery was among eight Republican state senators who had voted against redistricting and then faced reelection contests; seven of those eight lost their primaries, while Sen. Greg Goode of Terre Haute was the lone incumbent survivor.
WFYI reported that Deery had opposed President Donald Trump’s push to redraw congressional maps in a way intended to benefit Republicans nationally. The outlet said Trump backed primary efforts against Republicans who resisted that push.
Those larger political divisions help explain why a local recount has drawn wider attention. But the formal decision itself was narrower: the commission evaluated disputed ballots and applied the state’s absentee-ballot rules.
District 23 stretches from western Tippecanoe and Montgomery counties to the Illinois border, making the outcome important to voters across a sizable western Indiana region.
The appeal could define the result
An appeal would shift the focus from the recount commission’s ballot-by-ballot ruling to legal questions about how Indiana election statutes should be interpreted and enforced.
A court could uphold the exclusions, restore some or all of the rejected ballots, or otherwise address the procedures used by the commission. The sources reviewed do not establish a timetable for an appeal or a final court decision.
The case also leaves practical questions for county election officials. If the ruling stands, it may reinforce the importance of completing every required signature, seal and set of initials before absentee ballots are finalized.
For now, the clearest fact is also the most striking one: an initial three-vote win for Deery became a three-vote win for Copenhaver after the recount. In a race this close, election administration was not a side issue. It was the result.
Leave a Reply