Marion County Election Board Finds Violations in Election Day Incident - February 26, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Marion County Election Board Meeting - February 26, 2025
The Marion County Election Board convened on February 26, 2025, at 1:00 PM to conduct a hearing regarding an incident that occurred at the First Friends meeting church vote center during the November 2024 general election. The board considered four alleged violations of Title III of the Indiana Election Code against Michael Palombi: electioneering, obstruction or interference with election workers, voter intimidation, and threatening election workers. Despite multiple opportunities to be heard, including a meeting scheduled for this date, neither Mr. Palombi nor his counsel appeared. The board unanimously found all four violations and voted to refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney.
Discussion Items
- Timeline of Events: Director of Elections Patrick Becker outlined the process: the board first reviewed the incident on December 12, 2024, and voted to notify Mr. Palombi. A hearing was set for January 21, 2025, but Mr. Palombi did not attend. The board then worked with his counsel to schedule a mutually agreeable date, resulting in the February 26 meeting. On the morning of the hearing, counsel informed the board that Mr. Palombi would not attend due to a work emergency out of state, and counsel was directed not to appear.
- Legal Context on Firearms: Vice Chair Jennifer Ping asked about firearms in polling places. Outside counsel Brad Boswell explained that Indiana election law (Title III) does not address firearms possession directly; general rules for each location (e.g., public schools, private facilities) apply regardless of election day. However, the board’s inquiry concerned not mere possession but the manner in which firearms were displayed or brandished, which could contribute to obstruction, intimidation, or threats.
- Specific Violations Discussed: The board considered four separate charges based on the video evidence and investigation: (1) electioneering – wearing political paraphernalia inside the vote center; (2) obstruction or interference with election workers; (3) voter intimidation; and (4) threatening election workers. Each charge was addressed individually.
Key Outcomes
- Votes on Violations: The board voted separately on each of the four charges, with all motions passing unanimously (3-0). Specifically:
- Electioneering: motion by Secretary Kate Sweeney Bill, seconded, passed 3-0.
- Obstruction or interference with election workers: motion and second, passed 3-0.
- Voter intimidation: motion and second, passed 3-0.
- Threatening election workers: motion by Secretary Sweeney Bill, seconded by Vice Chair Ping, passed 3-0.
- Referral to Prosecutor: The board agreed to prepare a communication referring these findings to the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney for further review and potential action. Board members emphasized the importance of safe voting environments and the seriousness of the violations.
- No Other Business: The meeting adjourned after the hearing, with no additional agenda items.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. We'll get started. It's one o'clock. My name is Ann Mullen O'Connor. I am serving as proxy for Nolita Stewart, the chair of this board. I will ask the ladies on my right and left to introduce themselves as well. Hi, good afternoon. Um Vice Chair Jennifer Ping. I'm Secretary and Marion County Clerk Kate Sweeney Bill. Thank you. We have uh one item on our agenda for action, uh the election day incident hearing, and I will turn it over to Patrick Becker, Director of Elections. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so um we're here um to talk about the incident that happened at the first friends uh meeting church. Um just to kind of give a timeline of uh where we uh apologies. Sorry. Um just to give you a timeline of um how we got to this point. So uh this board met on uh December the 12th. Um it was the first uh meeting that um staff brought this issue to the board um and provided um sort of uh the the initial incident report. Um the board uh voted to send notice to um uh Mr. Palombi at that meeting. He was provided notice on Friday, December 13th, um uh notifying him of the January 21st board meeting. Um the January 21st board meeting. Uh we were notified shortly before a few days before that he would not be in attendance. Uh staff recapped the incident. Uh we watched the video. Um the inspector of the location um spoke and provided testimony. Um and at that point, the board directed our council to uh work with Mr. Palumbi's counsel to find a mutually agreeable time to um allow him to come and and have um you know address the board. Uh that was today. Uh this meeting was the uh you know earliest um that we could agree on. Um, and it's my understanding that um neither Mr. Palumbi or his counsel is here. Um and I'll let um our council kind of explain that uh correspondence. Uh thank you, uh Mr. Becker. Um yes, this morning is it on the there's a button on the front there. No, right here. Uh thank you. This morning uh around 11 30. Uh Mr. Palumbi's counsel contacted me and said he would not be in attendance today. We offered his council the opportunity to present on his behalf. Um Mr. Palumbey's absence was due to the work emergency out of out of state uh that came up this morning. Um we offered to him the opportunity to speak on his behalf, and my understanding is that Mr. Palumbe has directed his counsel not to uh attend the meeting, and I do not believe he's here. Thank you. Um for purposes of this meeting, I want to make it clear. I was not present at the December or January meetings. However, I've reviewed all the uh information, the meetings as well as the videos that were uh so I'm familiar with all the information that's been presented.
openpublica.com