Brown County Ballot Fight Heads to Seventh Circuit

Brown County Record

Brown County Record | A Civic Journal of Continuous Improvement

   A Local Dispute With National Stakes

On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will hear oral arguments in a case that began as an internal Republican Party dispute in rural Indiana and has grown into a constitutional contest over who controls ballot access. A decision is expected in the months that follow, and both sides are treating the outcome as consequential far beyond Brown County.

The appeal, Stanley and Clark v. Brown County Election Board (No. 26-1186), asks whether a county election board may enforce a political party’s five-year ban declaring two Republicans “not in good standing,” thereby keeping them off the party’s primary ballot. The plaintiffs are Brown County Commissioner Tim Clark and attorney Richard E. Stanley Jr. The defendant is the Brown County Election Board. A federal district judge dismissed their lawsuit in January 2026; they are asking the Seventh Circuit to reverse.

As of mid-September 2026, the case remains fully briefed. The Election Board moved on August 31 to waive oral argument or, alternatively, to present it by video conference. Stanley and Clark filed a response opposing the motion on September 8, arguing that the case raises foundational questions about democratic process and ballot access that warrant full in-person argument. On September 10, the Seventh Circuit denied both requests by the Election Board’s attorneys. The court determined that “the decisional process would be aided by oral argument” (citing Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C)) and rejected the request to proceed by video. Oral argument remains scheduled for September 25 in Chicago.

01 — Origins

How it started

The fight over “good standing” began before Clark ever won office. When he filed as a Republican candidate for County Commissioner District 3 in 2024, Brown County Republican Party Chair Mark Bowman challenged his candidacy before the primary. Bowman alleged that Clark had submitted incomplete and untrue candidate forms and was “not affiliated with the Republican Party.” The argument, as Clark later described it, was that he was an independent rather than a Republican with an independent mind.

The Brown County Election Board rejected that challenge. It refused to accept Bowman’s claim that Clark was not in good standing and confirmed that Clark met the legal criteria to run as a Republican. Clark went on to win the Republican primary.

That early board ruling is now part of the larger story because the same Election Board later took a different posture once the state party issued its five-year ban. In 2024, the board declined to keep Clark off the Republican ballot on Bowman’s good-standing theory. In 2026, after the party’s disciplinary decision, the board removed Stanley from the Republican primary ballot.

Clark has said he primarily voted Republican but occasionally supported a more fiscally conservative non-Republican. He also noted that Bowman himself had previously criticized straight-ticket voting, saying the candidate from one’s own party is not always the best choice.

After Clark won the primary, Bowman publicly supported independent Greg Taggart against the Republican nominee. Taggart acknowledged that he was not a Republican. During closing remarks at a League of Women Voters candidate forum, Taggart said he was neither a Republican nor a Democrat and asked not to be placed in either category. That public acknowledgment is central to Clark’s Rule 1-25 complaint: Bowman, as party chair, supported a candidate who had rejected the Republican label against the Republican nominee.

Clark viewed that support as a violation of Indiana Republican Party Rule 1-25, which defines a “Republican in Good Standing” as someone who supports Republican nominees and does not actively or openly support another candidate against a Republican nominee.

In December 2024, Clark—joined by Stanley and two others—filed an internal complaint against Bowman only. Other Republican elected officials, candidates, and precinct officers had also backed Taggart, but the complainants deliberately limited the filing to Bowman. Their stated goal was to address the leadership problem without fracturing the party, leaving room to rebuild if Bowman were found not in good standing.

At a January 23, 2025, hearing before the 9th District Republican Committee, the officers dismissed the complaint against Bowman. Instead, they ruled that Clark and Stanley themselves were not Republicans in good standing for five years. Stanley’s ban rested on an alleged contribution to Taggart, which he has consistently denied. Clark’s ban cited a “long and well-documented history” of opposing Republican candidates, supporting non-Republicans, and self-identifying as independent—characterizations he disputes.

In a February 2025 letter to the Brown County Democrat, Clark described the hearing as a surprise proceeding in which he and Stanley were placed “on trial” without notice. He said district officers relied on “unwritten rules”: that the party is a private club, that criticism or any past support for a non-Republican can disqualify someone, and that the rules can be applied selectively. Clark noted that the committee had no power to remove him from his current office but that election-board enforcement of the ban could block future Republican candidacies.

Bowman was later re-elected as county party chair. His wife became vice chair and his son secretary. Only two votes out of roughly twenty were cast against the family slate.

02 — The controlling case

What Hero actually held

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt dismissed Stanley and Clark’s lawsuit with prejudice in January 2026, relying heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s 2022 decision in Hero v. Lake County Election Board, 42 F.4th 768. That opinion is why this appeal exists. It is also, the plaintiffs argue, why the district court got the facts of Brown County backward.

Joseph Hero had been a registered Republican for forty years. He voted in Republican primaries, held party office—including as Lake County Republican chairman—and ran as a Republican with occasional success. In St. John, in Lake County, he opposed a town-council plan to seize the property of lower-income residents through eminent domain. He then publicly backed two independent candidates running against incumbent Republican councilmembers. The Indiana Republican Party declared him “not a Republican in good standing” for ten years. When he tried to appear on the 2019 Republican primary ballot, the Lake County Election Board struck his name.

Hero sued the election board, not the party. The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Amy St. Eve, held that the board did not violate his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court described the restriction as “minor” because Indiana law still allowed him to run as an independent or as a write-in candidate. Political parties, the court said, may protect themselves from “intrusion by those with adverse political principles,” and a state may enforce that membership decision at the ballot. The panel concluded the restriction was reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

On those facts, applying Rule 1-25 was appropriate and justified. Hero was a Republican who publicly backed independents against Republican nominees. That is the conduct the rule is written to reach. The party’s response, and the election board’s enforcement of it, followed the rule as written. No serious argument exists that Hero’s conduct fell outside the text.

The district court treated that holding as the end of the inquiry in Stanley and Clark. The comparison, however, is as much the point of the appeal as the legal test. Hero answers what a party may do when a member openly supports an independent against a Republican nominee. It does not answer what a public election board may do when the party applies that rule to the members who invoked it, and not to the chair who broke it.

“The decision to strike Hero’s name from the ballot imposed only a minor restriction on his ballot access.”

— Hero v. Lake County Election Board, 42 F.4th 768 (7th Cir. 2022)

03 — Selective enforcement

The same rule, applied two ways

The absurdity is not that Hero lost. The absurdity is that the conduct which justified his ban is the same conduct Brown County Republican leadership then engaged in—and was not punished for.

Rule 1-25 defines a Republican in good standing as someone who supports Republican nominees and does not actively or openly support another candidate against a Republican nominee. That is the rule applied to Hero. Bowman also invoked the same rule against Clark before the 2024 primary, and Clark later invoked it against Bowman.

After Clark won the Republican nomination, Bowman—the sitting chair of the Brown County Republican Party—publicly supported independent Greg Taggart against the Republican nominee. Others in leadership positions did the same. At a public League of Women Voters forum, Taggart said he was neither a Republican nor a Democrat and asked not to be placed in either category. He was not a Republican who had wandered off the reservation. He had rejected the label out loud.

Clark and Stanley followed the process the party rules require. They filed a complaint against Bowman, limited it to the chair rather than a wider purge, and put the evidence before the 9th District Republican Committee. The complaint against Bowman was ignored. Clark and Stanley were then ruled not in good standing without receiving a formal complaint of their own, without notice that they were the accused, and without an opportunity to counter the allegations.

The reason is obvious. The evidence against Bowman was clear: a sitting party chair had publicly supported a candidate who, in a public forum, said he was not a Republican, against the Republican nominee. That is Hero. That is Rule 1-25. Had the district officers applied the same standard to Bowman that the Seventh Circuit accepted when it applied it to Joseph Hero, they would have found Bowman not in good standing for ten years. They could not punish Clark and Stanley without applying that standard to Bowman. So they did not apply it to Bowman. They applied it to the men who had invoked it.

That disparity is the factual core of the argument that Hero does not control this case. Hero involved evenhanded enforcement of a membership rule against a Republican who had backed independents. The Seventh Circuit called that restriction reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Here, the chair and others in leadership did what Hero did, while the members who followed the complaint process were declared not in good standing without a formal complaint, notice, or a chance to respond. The plaintiffs argue that this is not the party self-governance Hero protected. It is selective enforcement—unreasonable and discriminatory application of the same rule—carried out through a public election board.

Comparison of Key Actors

Who Conduct Independent Process Result
Joseph Hero (2022) Republican who publicly backed independents against GOP nominees Independents running against Republican incumbents Party ban after his own support for independents Ten-year ban; struck from ballot. 7th Cir.: reasonable & nondiscriminatory
Mark Bowman Party chair who publicly backed independent Taggart against the GOP nominee Taggart stated in a public forum that he was not a Republican Formal complaint filed against him; dismissed without equivalent sanction Remains county chair; family slate elected
Clark & Stanley Filed the Rule 1-25 complaint the party rules require — No formal complaint, no notice, no chance to counter Five-year ban; Stanley removed from the 2026 Republican primary ballot
04 — The appeal

The lawsuit and the road to Chicago

Clark and Stanley sued the Brown County Election Board in federal court in July 2025. They argued that enforcing the party’s decision would violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They sought an injunction preventing the board from applying the ban. They did not sue the Republican Party itself.

Judge Pratt dismissed the case with prejudice in January 2026, treating Hero as controlling and concluding that the restriction was minor because Indiana still allowed independent or write-in candidacies. Stanley and Clark appealed.

While the appeal was pending, Stanley filed for the 2026 Republican primary for Commissioner District 2. On February 19, 2026, the Election Board—after a challenge citing the party ban—removed him from the ballot. A subsequent state-court suit seeking reinstatement was dismissed on res judicata grounds.

That sequence gives the appeal a sharper factual edge. The board once rejected Bowman’s effort to exclude Clark from a Republican primary on good-standing grounds. Later, after the district and state party rulings, the board enforced a similar theory against Stanley. The plaintiffs say that contrast matters. The election board stated it is applying party determinations and state election law, not inventing its own political discipline.

05 — Ballot access in practice

Why the independent alternative falls short

Courts have treated the independent route as a mitigating factor. Local electoral realities, however, suggest it is a weak substitute in Brown County.

Indiana remains one of the few states that still allows straight-ticket voting. In recent elections, large percentages of voters—often 40 to 70 percent in various counties—have used the option. A straight-ticket Republican vote automatically selects every Republican candidate and bypasses independents entirely. No independent has won a county commissioner race in recent Indiana history. Even Taggart—who publicly said he was not a Republican and still had the local party chair’s support—finished second in 2024 with roughly 29 percent of the vote, behind Clark’s 44.6 percent.

Stanley has always voted in Republican primaries. Running as an independent, he has argued, could itself be treated as further evidence of not supporting Republican nominees, potentially deepening the ban rather than ending it. For a candidate without party-insider backing, the independent path appears functionally closed.

That is the other half of the Hero problem. Judge St. Eve wrote that an independent can “tout his Republican virtues, tell voters he supports Republicans, put up yard signs to that effect, and run on a platform identical to any political party.” In a straight-ticket county, those yard signs never reach the voters who pull the Republican lever and never see an independent’s name. The legal alternative remains on the books. The practical one does not.

06 — The panel

What happens after September 25

The September 25 arguments will focus on whether Hero controls, whether the board’s enforcement of this particular party decision constitutes unconstitutional state action, and whether the burden on ballot access is truly minor given Indiana’s electoral structure. The panel may also probe the factual disputes surrounding the ban, the process that produced it, and the board’s changing role: first rejecting Bowman’s pre-primary challenge to Clark, then later removing Stanley after the party’s five-year ruling.

If the plaintiffs are heard on the merits of the comparison, the panel will have to decide whether Hero still governs when the same rule is alleged to have been applied discriminatorily—when the chair who backed a self-described non-Republican kept his office. The members who followed the complaint process were banned without a complaint of their own. A decision that treats those facts as indistinguishable from Hero’s would extend the 2022 holding from evenhanded party discipline to selective enforcement. A decision that distinguishes them would be the first signal that Hero has a factual limit.

A Seventh Circuit decision affirming the district court would reinforce party autonomy over primary ballots and leave the five-year ban intact for Republican primaries. A reversal or remand could open the door to closer judicial scrutiny of party disciplinary decisions when government election boards enforce them—especially when those decisions allegedly rest on disputed facts or retaliatory motives.

That ruling would not necessarily end the case. If the Seventh Circuit rules against Stanley and Clark, they could ask the same panel or the full court to rehear the appeal. Those requests are rarely granted. They could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court would not have to hear the case. It grants only a small fraction of petitions, usually when there is a split among the circuits or a question the justices consider nationally important.

Still, that possibility remains part of the path forward. A Supreme Court petition would ask whether an election board’s enforcement of a party “good standing” ban violates federal constitutional rights, and whether Hero should control these facts. Any such review would take additional months. Because Stanley’s 2026 Republican primary opportunity has already passed and Clark’s current term runs through 2028, a later ruling would likely matter more as precedent than as immediate ballot relief.

The forthcoming Seventh Circuit opinion will provide the first appellate word on whether the district court correctly applied Hero to these specific facts. That decision will determine the immediate path for Clark’s potential 2028 candidacy and Stanley’s future eligibility. It will also set circuit precedent on the boundary between private party discipline and public ballot access—unless the losing side seeks further review and the Supreme Court agrees to take the case.

The dispute remains local in its origins: a fight over Rule 1-25, a county party chair, and two men who challenged the local leadership. Yet its implications reach further. It asks whether a political party, acting through a public election board, can close the primary door for reasons the excluded candidates call false or selective, and whether the formal availability of an independent line is enough when that line rarely leads to victory.

On September 25, the Seventh Circuit will hear the arguments in person in Chicago. The decision that follows—expected in the months afterward—will determine whether this Brown County fight ends as a settled matter of party discipline, returns for further proceedings, or continues toward a possible request for Supreme Court review.

Tim J. Clark

Personal Disclosure: I am a plaintiff in Stanley and Clark v. Brown County Election Board. I have a direct personal interest in the outcome of this case. I am writing this article as a private citizen, and it reflects my perspective on the litigation.

Author’s Notes & Disclosures. The article was written with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools.

Additional Information. For more information regarding the arguments and counter-arguments: PACER: Public Access to Court Electronic Records

Editorial Disclosure

The Brown County Record is an independent, privately operated civic publication. It is not an official publication of Brown County government and does not represent the views or positions of the Brown County Commissioners or any other county office.

Although I serve as a Brown County Commissioner, the views and opinions expressed in the Brown County Record are my own, as a private citizen, and not in my official capacity.

As a plaintiff in Stanley and Clark v. Brown County Election Board, I have a direct personal interest in the case discussed in this article. Readers should consider that relationship when evaluating my reporting, analysis, and opinions.

Religious Affiliation – Brown County, IN

Uncategorized

Where to Find Local Data: The U.S. Religion Census

Gemini:

The most comprehensive source for county-level data is the U.S. Religion Census, which is compiled every 10 years by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) and hosted online by the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA).

Rather than polling individuals, this study gathers membership numbers directly from congregations and religious bodies.

Brown County, Indiana Religious Affiliation Data

According to the most recent data (2020), Brown County had an official population of 15,475. Out of that total, 4,556 individuals (or 29.4%) were reported as active adherents/members of a specific local congregation. The remaining 70.6% are considered religiously unaffiliated or attend services outside documented county lines.

The breakdown of the largest participating religious groups in Brown County includes:

2026 IN Elections: The “Lincoln Party” and Independent Candidates

Uncategorized, , , ,

Deadlines: The deadline to submit needed signatures to run as an INDEPENDENT is noon, June 30, 2026.  The county clerk can provide the forms and identify the number of required signatures, including other filing deadlines.

Former 2-term Republican Greg Ballard is running as an Independent for Indiana Secretary of State under the banner “Lincoln Party.”

Ballard turns in 74,000 signatures in independent secretary of state bid, By: Garrett Bergquist, WRTV

If Ballard takes home at least 2% of the vote in November, that would put his newly-formed Lincoln Party on the ballot automatically for future elections. A 10% vote total for Ballard would mean the Lincoln Party would be able to hold primaries, as the Republican and Democratic parties do. Ballard said his early internal polling suggests he has the support of 23% of likely voters.

 

Gemini Prompt: Is there a website that provides information about the “Lincoln Party?”

Gemini Reply:

The Lincoln Party is a newly formed political entity in Indiana, created specifically for former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s 2026 campaign for Indiana Secretary of State.

While there is currently no standalone, permanent website for the “Lincoln Party” itself, you can find information regarding its platform and the campaign through the following resources:

Official Campaign Information

  • Greg Ballard Campaign: As the party’s founder and primary candidate, information about the Lincoln Party’s mission—focused on providing an “independent voice” and moving away from “toxic” partisan politics—is primarily disseminated through Ballard’s campaign communications.
  • Ballard’s Social Media: The campaign often uses social media platforms to coordinate the 37,000 signatures required by June 30, 2026, to secure a spot on the ballot under this new label.

News and Analysis

Because the party is in its “nascent” stage and technically won’t be fully established as an official party until it meets vote thresholds in the November election, local news outlets are the best source for current details:

Key Facts About the Lincoln Party

  • Purpose: It was created to allow Ballard to run with a partisan-style label (as a “partisan affiliate”) rather than just a “true independent,” which helps with ballot visibility.

  • Future Impact: If Ballard receives at least 2% of the vote in the November 3, 2026, election, the Lincoln Party will become an officially recognized party in Indiana. This would allow future candidates to run under the label without the “onerous” requirement of collecting thousands of signatures.

  • Ideology: Ballard describes the party as a home for “Republicans of the old age” and independent-minded voters who feel the two major parties are currently “broken.” 1

    Interview: Political science professor on Greg Ballard’s run and the ‘Lincoln Party’ – WFYI
    Source icon

    http://www.wfyi.org

     

     

 

 

 

Indiana Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Nashville an IMBA Trail Town

Uncategorized

Indiana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2026

 Brown County Mountain Biking – IMBA Trail Town

🚨 OFFICIAL: Nashville, Indiana has been recognized as an IMBA Trail Town 🚨

This is a huge moment for our trails, our community, and everyone who’s been part of building something special here. More to come, because this impacts YOU!
Stay tuned 👀 

The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to creating, enhancing, and preserving great mountain biking experiences. An IMBA Trail Town is a community recognized for its exceptional commitment to building, maintaining, and celebrating trail systems, integrating trails into daily life and culture.

2026 Music Center – Revenue Distribution

Uncategorized

Feb 20, 2026. Music Center gives back $252,500 to county, foundation by Staff Reports

  • “Staff Reporters” — are corporate – AIM media – NOT the local brown county reports
 This post at Brown County Matters (Mar 12, 2026)
Backstory. The Administrative Agreement for the Music Center states that 75% of the excess revenue from the Music Center (if permitted by law), is to be donated to the Brown County Community Foundation. The county receives 25% and a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) of $65k.

The current Commissioners requested a change last year to a 50/50 distribution with the proceeds to be used to finance unfunded infrastructure costs, with a priority on bridges and roads.

Taxpayers are at Risk for the venue. For example, as a result of the economic downturn due to COVID, the federal taxpayers provided a subsidy of $2.7 million, and the county another $239K.
The Commissioners’ 50/50 proposal was not acceptable to the majority of the seven-member Music Center Management Board. The board includes one commissioner (Sanders) and one councilman (Byrd). The Foundation also supports maintaining the current agreement.

At their Oct 21, 2025, meeting, Council members also stated they support the current arrangement, except for Scott Rudd, who did not commit to a specific position.
Although the 75/25 agreement (if permitted by law) is legally questionable, amending the agreement requires a majority vote by the commissioners and the music center management board. The council if necessary, would also need to support any legal costs to confirm legality. The council would be involved if there was a desire for a new agreement rather than an amended one.
Commissioner Sanders has proposed selling the venue as an option to eliminate risk and help fund infrastructure costs, but additional research indicates this was not a feasible option.

The commissioners and council meet twice a month. The meeting schedule is posted on the county website. Their meetings are also streamed. Commissioners’ email: commissioners@browncounty-in.gov

2026 Election: Independent Candidate for Indiana Secretary of State

Uncategorized

Last updated: Apr 30,  2026

Relevance to Brown County?  2026 Brown County Primary Challenge.

April 28, 2026. Post – Greg Ballard for Indiana Secretary of State. – Response 

  • Here’s the problem…
  • Four out of five Hoosiers can’t run as Republicans or Democrats due to a state law (HEA 1365, 2021) the parties passed, according to a 2025 report from the nonpartisan group, Independent Indiana.
  • Yet Hoosiers are paying an average of $10 million for Primary Elections.
  • Indiana taxpayers shouldn’t be funding a system that excludes most Hoosiers from running.

Apr 17, 2026. FINANCE REPORT FEUD: Morales’ office denies Ballard campaign’s accusation of being blocked from filing. The Indiana Citizen

  • Ballard has raised $289. 807.
  • Bayh led the field, raising more than $620,000 and ending the opening quarter with $1.97 million on hand. Morales followed, bringing in more than $107,000 in donations and having $1.20 million in his campaign coffers.
  • Blythe Potter, who is vying for the Democratic nomination, ended the quarter by topping $20,000.
  • David Shelton, Knox County clerk, and Jamie Reitenour, the other Republicans challenging Morales for the GOP nomination, had about $3,700 and $2,900 on hand, respectively, at the close of the first quarter.
  • Lauri Shillings, Libertarian candidate, ended the quarter with more than $12,000 in her campaign fund.

Mar 10, 2026. ‘STEP FORWARD’: Ex-Mayor Greg Ballard starts new political party in bid for secretary of state  By Marilyn Odendahl The Indiana Citizen,

  • Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is establishing a new political party as he prepares to launch his campaign for Indiana secretary of state.
  • Ballard announced on March 3 that he was entering the secretary of state race as an independent. However, the campaign has recently announced that the former Republican mayor will be running as a candidate for the statewide office as a member of the newly formed Lincoln Party.

Rob Kendall Show. Episode 4, March 5, 2026. The Republican freak out to Greg Ballard shows you they know what a bad candidate Diego Morales is. We discussed on today’s show

Former GOP mayor plans independent run for state’s top elections post Niki Kelly, Tom Davies Wed, March 4, 2026 at 6:30 AM EST.

  • Former Republican Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard announced his run for Indiana secretary of state as an independent, aiming to provide a nonpartisan option for voters.
  • Ballard will need to gather nearly 37,000 petition signatures and raise around $2 million to be competitive in the race, which will be the top statewide race on the Indiana ballot this year.
  • A recent poll conducted by Independent Indiana showed Ballard with support from nearly one-quarter of voters in a hypothetical matchup against the Republican and Democratic nominees, indicating a potentially tight three-way race.

Ballard to champion new political party, campaign says,  BY JARRED MEEKS

  • Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s recently announced run for secretary of state could pave the way for a new political party in Indiana, according to his campaign.
  • Ballard is framing his run as an independent, but a campaign spokesperson said he will affiliate with a yet-to-be-named political party with the intent of unlocking ballot access for Hoosiers who feel disillusioned with the country’s two major parties

Mar 2, 2026. Polling shows Greg Ballard immediately competitive as an independent in Secretary of State race, Independent Indiana

  • The survey, conducted by InAct, LLC from October 24–November 1, 2025, polled 400 likely Indiana general election voters. The margin of sampling error is ±4.9% at the 95% confidence level.
  • The data show that Ballard would begin a three-way race in an immediately competitive position.

Mt Tea State Forest – Hiking

Uncategorized, , , ,

‘Primitive recreation’: New state forest opens in Brown County.

Article on the opening of Mt Tea State Forest by Sara Clifford, Brown County Democrat:

Hiking in Brown County: Mountain Tea State Forest

Feb 9, 2026 If you’ve never heard of Mountain Tea State Forest, you’re not alone; even many locals don’t realize it exists. Quietly tucked into a remote corner of Brown County and only officially named a state forest in 2020, Mt. Tea is one of Indiana’s most recent public land additions. I checked it out partly out of curiosity and partly because I love finding lesser-known places to hike. What I …

Mountain Tea State Forest – visitusparks.com

Mountain Tea State Forest is a beautiful natural area located in the southern part of Indiana. The forest covers an area of 1,200 acres and is home to a diverse range of flora and fauna. The forest is situated in the rolling hills of the Hoosier National Forest, making it an ideal destination for nature lovers and outdoor enthusiasts. One of the main …

Mt. Tea State Forest, Nashville, IN – Wanderlog

For access to the lake area at Mt. Tea State Forest: take first right past gate then follow path towards cabin before curving left towards the lake; expect obstacles like downed trees to navigate Wear long pants while hiking due to limited foot traffic and potential encounters with hunters or rattlesnakes

Discover the Serenity of Mt. Tea State Forest – evendo.com

Nestled in the heart of Indiana, Mt. Tea State Forest is a haven for outdoor enthusiasts, drawing visitors with its stunning landscapes and diverse wildlife. The forest is characterized by its rolling hills, vibrant flora, and serene atmosphere, making it an ideal destination for hiking, birdwatching, and simply soaking in the beauty of nature.

Easy hikes and walks in Mountain Tea State Forest – Komoot

Feb 21, 2025 Exploring Mountain Tea State Forest on foot is a delightful way to connect with nature. To help you make the most of your adventures, we’ve compiled the top easy hikes and walks in Mountain Tea State Forest. Perfect for short hikes, kid-friendly excursions, and family-friendly outings, …

Mountain Tea State Forest – BringFido

Mountain Tea State Forest is a popular dog friendly hike in Nashville. Visit Bring Fido for an overview of the trail, along with pictures, directions, and reviews from dog owners who’ve been there.

2026 Primary: Candidate Challenges

Uncategorized, , , ,

Last updated: March 6, 2026

Summary:

  • Both the Democratic and Republican appointees on the Election Board reinforced that their Party is a private entity (a club) that can decide who can be on its ballot. They can create “any” criteria they want and expect a “county government” election board to enforce their decision.
  • Sure, it’s “possible” an individual can run and win as an independent in the general election, which, in our current system, is equivalent to telling someone to buy a lottery ticket if they want more money.
  • When is the centralization or monopoly of political power ever a good thing? The two-party system in the county is not leading to attracting the best candidates for the available offices. In fact, the system likely deters qualified people from getting involved at all.
  • An option is to move to recruit and support Independent candidates that focus on county interests over party interests.

Mar 4, 2026.  Brown County – Follow-up articles

Brown County Democrat – Article on the meeting.

The following  post is at Brown County Matters.

Candidate Challenge: Election Board Hearing, Feb 19, 2026

The board upheld the challenge to Republican candidates Rich Stanley and Sherrie Mitchell and removed them from the primary ballot.

Rich Stanley plans to challenge the Election Board’s decision in circuit court. This legal step is necessary to build a case—if required—for a potential hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (1)
The challenge and defense of Rich’s candidacy starts at the 44:47 mark. 

The Election Board’s position supports the fact that political parties are considered private entities or clubs and do not need to provide justification when removing a candidate from their ballot. This position has been supported by federal and state courts.

Individuals can still run as Independents if they meet requirements established by both the parties and the state. In practice, winning as an Independent is similar to trying to get rich by buying a lottery ticket.

Justification? The irony is that Rich was removed from the Republican ballot because of his wife’s donation at a fundraiser for Independent candidate Greg Taggart. But the underlying reason was most likely his criticism of Mark Bowman’s leadership as Party Chair.

Taggart’s fundraiser was supported by leaders in the Republican Party despite concerns that it violated Rule 1-25. The precedent is that county partys’ within the state have banned candidates for up to 10 years for violating this rule. At a 2024 League of Women Voters forum, Taggart publicly stated that he was not a Republican and was defeated in the general election by Tim Clark, the Republican candidate.

Rule 1-25 states: “The term “Republican in Good-Standing” shall be defined as a Republican who supports Republican nominees and who does not actively or openly support another candidate against a Republican nominee.”
Those in attendance at the 2024 fundraiser who are on the 2026 primary Republican ballot include:
  • Scott Rudd (Commissioner)
  • Pearletta Banks (Clerk)
  • Greg Taggart (Washington Township Trustee)
Party leaders reportedly supporting the fundraiser included: Robyn Bowman (Vice Chair) and Tanner Bowman (Secretary). Mark Bowman is the Party Chair.

Rule 1-25, in practice, can be overridden by “unwritten rules.” The written rules may be selectively applied—enforced for some and ignored for others.

The “unwritten rules” described by Republican Party leadership include the fact that Individuals may be deemed in “bad standing,” and therefore ineligible to run as Republicans, for criticizing party officials, previously supporting (no time limit) a non-Republican candidate, or for other perceived infractions.
Checks and balances on power are meant to come from Precinct and Vice Precinct Committee members—but these positions can be appointed by the Party Chair. Vacancies may also remain unfilled, potentially limiting opposition. History shows that centralized power can erode trust and accountability over time. Obtaining a list of the Precinct and Vice Precinct committee members has required signing a non-disclosure agreement.
The cost? A monopoly on political power such as exists in Brown County, reduces competition, can contribute to waste, inefficiencies, and moral corruption, and can limit the number of people that want to be involved in county government. Moral corruption refers to the decline of ethical standards and principles, leading individuals or political clubs to engage in immoral or unethical behavior.

A system perceived as corrupt risks undermining the ethics and integrity of those who operate within it—sometimes without them even realizing it.
A Way Ahead?
Organizations like Independent Indiana (IndependentIndiana.org) are working to challenge the system by supporting independent candidates. The belief is that independent candidates may be more focused on serving their communities rather than party structures or special interests. America’s Founding Fathers warned that political factions could become contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
The Brown County Leader Network (browncountyleadernetwork.com) also introduces methods and tools for improving systems and supporting structural reforms aimed at strengthening transparency, accountability and improving performance.
The challenge isn’t just about one candidate—it’s about fairness, transparency, and the future of representative government.

 

Footnotes:

  1. Rich Stanley, along with Tim Clark, is challenging a previous ruling that they are not in Good Standing with the party and cannot run as Republicans for five years.  This decision was challenged in federal court, which ruled in favor of the Party and is also being challenged.
    • Clark, Stanley lawsuit dismissed in federal court, Brown County Democrat. “Clark and Stanley have now formally appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, asking the higher court to reverse the decision and allow their case to proceed.”
Oct 29, 2024. Letter: Republican commissioner candidate claims local party …by Tim Clark
Brown County Democrat
Feb 5, 2025.  Letter: Clark responds to ruling on GOP chair complaint, Brown County Democrat

Straight Ticket Voting

Uncategorized
January 22, 2026.  STRAIGHT TICKET STUMBLES: Bipartisan push to reform voting is meeting familiar resistance

“There’s simply too much division,” Clere (R) said. “Partisanship is a big part of what’s driving it. We need to move away from that and try to find ways to come together as elected officials and unite our constituents, our communities.”

Indiana is one of just six states that allow straight-ticket voting, along with Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma and South Carolina, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

While the General Assembly partially eliminated the practice in 2016 by abolishing straight-ticket voting for at-large races, lawmakers and election experts say the resulting hybrid system has only added confusion.

“Voters don’t always understand that they still have to select individual candidates for at-large races when they vote straight ticket,” Clere said. “So they choose not to vote at all.”

Clere, now in his ninth term, said he has authored or co-authored versions of the bill multiple times, first filing it jointly in 2023 with former Rep. Rita Fleming, D-Jeffersonville. He said the issue has only grown more urgent as political divisions have intensified.