A Clay County judge heard arguments Tuesday that could ultimately determine who appears on the ballot in Indiana Senate District 38, as a fast-moving legal fight over candidate eligibility continues to unfold.

The case is now formally before the Clay Circuit Court as a petition for judicial review, under cause number 11C01-2603-RA-000185, following a deadlocked decision by the Indiana Election Commission.

At the center of the controversy is whether a prior case involving alternative misdemeanor sentencing (AMS) constitutes a disqualifying felony conviction under Indiana election law.

Attorney Samantha DeWester, representing candidate Alexandra Wilson, argued that it does not. Her position is that while the original charge may have been filed at the felony level, the case was treated as a misdemeanor from the outset under AMS—not later reduced. That distinction, she contends, is critical under Indiana Code Title 3, which ties candidate disqualification to convictions punishable by more than 365 days.

In Dewester’s view, the operative conviction is a misdemeanor, meaning the statutory bar does not apply. She further argued that older plea forms—often reliant on checkboxes and boilerplate language—do not override how the court actually classified and handled the case at the time.

Opposing counsel, led by election attorney Jim Bopp, took a different view. Bopp argued that a felony guilty plea remains a felony for purposes of ballot eligibility, regardless of how the sentence was ultimately structured or later modified. Under his interpretation, candidate qualifications must be assessed at the time of filing, and subsequent developments—such as expungement or sentencing outcomes—do not retroactively cure a disqualification.

Bopp also raised concerns about potential voter confusion, suggesting that the presence of similarly named candidates on the ballot could mislead voters and dilute support for another candidate in the race. He framed the issue as not only a legal dispute, but a matter of electoral fairness.

The dispute stems from a 2–2 split by the Indiana Election Commission, which allowed the candidate to remain on the ballot. While a tie vote effectively denies the challenge, it also pushed the issue into court through the state’s Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA) process.

That procedural path has already produced significant legal maneuvering. The petitioner sought an emergency stay that would have halted the mailing of absentee ballots across multiple counties within the district. A judge initially granted that request, ordering election officials to stop distributing ballots. However, that order was later vacated, with the court citing federal election law constraints on delaying absentee voting.

The case has also seen a change in judicial leadership. After a motion for change of judge was granted, a special judge was assigned and is now presiding over the matter as it moves forward on an expedited timeline.

Beyond the substantive legal arguments, the case has raised additional procedural concerns. DeWester questioned whether proper service of process was completed on all required parties, including her client and members of the Election Commission. Under Indiana trial rules and the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, parties are entitled to formal notice before a court can take action affecting their rights.

Failure to properly serve parties, she argued, is not a minor technical issue but a fundamental requirement of due process—particularly in a case that could impact ballot access and voter choice across multiple counties.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office also drew criticism during the proceedings for what DeWester described as a lack of a clear, consistent legal position. According to her, ambiguity from the state’s legal representative has contributed to confusion in a case where the stakes—both legal and political—are significant.

You can hear Dewester and Bopp in the audio above.