IIA Clay Circuit Court judge has ruled that Alexandra Wilson will remain on the ballot in the Republican primary for Indiana Senate District 38, preserving what has become a closely watched three-way race in western Indiana.
In an amended order issued Thursday, Special Judge Charles D. Bridges wrote that Wilson “is to remain on the ballot” and that the court “affirms the decision of the Commission.”
The ruling stems from a challenge filed by petitioner Jeffrey P. Gallant, who sought judicial review of the Indiana Election Commission’s earlier decision allowing Wilson’s candidacy to proceed.
Earlier Thursday morning, the Office of Attorney General Todd Rokita, representing the Commission, filed a response to Gallant’s motion for expedited resolution and urged the court to act quickly.
“In response to Petitioner’s April 10, 2026, motion for expedited resolution, the Indiana Election Commission stands on its filing of March 16, 2026, and its oral argument at the hearing held March 24, 2026,” Deputy Attorney General John Oberdorf wrote. “The Commission respectfully requests a prompt ruling from the Court.”
The order effectively clears the way for Wilson to continue her campaign in Senate District 38, a race that has drawn increasing attention because it now remains a three-way Republican primary contest.
The district, centered in the Terre Haute and Vigo County area, has emerged as one of the more closely watched legislative primaries in the state, fueled by local issues, party dynamics, and a broader fight over the direction of the Indiana Republican Party.
Wilson has previously said she entered the race because of concerns over local issues, including the proposed Vigo County school corporation mega-school project and other development issues affecting county residents.
Thursday’s ruling is a significant legal victory for her campaign, which has argued that efforts to remove her from the ballot were politically motivated.
The court’s order, however, includes language that appears unrelated to the election dispute itself.
In one passage, the order states that “the intent of the Parties, when Respondent accepted the plea, was for the Misdemeanor conviction to be entered on the ‘front end.’”
That language appears inconsistent with the nature of the case, which concerns ballot access and election law rather than a criminal proceeding, suggesting the possibility of a drafting or clerical error in the written order.
Despite that apparent discrepancy, the operative language of the ruling is clear: Wilson remains on the ballot and the Commission’s decision stands.
Whether Gallant will seek further review, including a possible appeal, is not yet known.
