STATE OF INDIANA
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT 3
CASE NO. 49D03-2610-CT-058232

GREG A. BALLARD,
Plaintiff,

v.

BETH BOYCE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADDRESS THE COURT AS AMICUS CURIAE

Comes now the undersigned, an interested citizen and independent speaker, and respectfully moves this Court for leave to address the Court as amicus curiae during this morning's hearing regarding the constitutional limitations on political disclaimers.

In support of this Motion, the applicant states that this case involves critical questions of independent political expression and public notice that directly impact the speech rights of non-parties under McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission and Stewart v. Taylor.

WHEREFORE, the applicant respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and allow a brief oral statement to assist the Court on these constitutional principles.

Respectfully submitted,

---

Robbin Stewart, Amicus Curiae
PO Box 29164
Indianapolis, IN 46229-0164
Email: gtbear@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was served via hand-delivery to counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants in the courtroom prior to the commencement of the hearing on this 23rd day of October, 2026.

 

---

Robbin Stewart, Amicus Curiae

I went to the hearing but did not get this in.

 respond to ballard suit

amicus curia letter. 

interest of amicus: i am the gop nominee for marion county clerk.

my campaign signs say "Robbin Stewart for Clerk Vote Tuesday".

In Stewart v Taylor the court declared Indiana's disclaimer rules unconstitutional under McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission. Thta ruling remains binding.    

facts: Mr. Ballard, a candidate for secretary of state,  has petitioned the court to order the election commission to meet promptly. 

one  of the 4 complaints he seeks to accelerate on the docket is a gop complaint against birch evan bayh IV, aka skippy. i mean bo i mean Beau.  

that complaint is related to a photo of a delaware county voting guide, a slate card. on the side shown there is no disclaimer. perhaps its is on the other side.  Ogden v Mardent and Mulholland v Marion County Election Board caution against attempting to violate the Talley-McIntyre rule as to slating cards. 

Mulholland was settled for $70,000. 

Miller v Jr Achivement is another related case, in which an Indiana court discussed anonymous speech under the first amendment.  

At the Supreme Court, recent cases reaffirm these principles. Chiles  Salazar, First Choice v Davenport, 303, Janus, NIFLA, Reed v Town f Vincent, Reagan v Austin.  

 Because Stewart v Taylor is res judicata here, an order for further relief should be available under federal rule _. 

 to do

did

didn't

make signs

motion for further relief in stewart v taylor

community east dog bite incident

tort claims

gupta

apf v apoc

az brief

disclaimer issue at sec state race. 

 

 

 https://gttodolist.blogspot.com/

 hi hi dani i usually keep a ;ist here

      hi dani

 

 

 

6 alternatives to grant cert/ full argument

imperfect vehicle because

- issue of no fine might be distracting w arguments about standing. 

- issue that p's used wrong term, disclosure, which led the court to apply disclosure cases instead of disclaimer cases.  

grant vacate remand gvr. 

hold till meta v washington grant a stay meanwhile 

summarily reverse, citing salazar.

issue statement supporting denial of cert

issue statement dissenting from denial of cert

just issue statement 

 

 

6 reasons why c u does not apply

1 corporate speech case

2 used strict scrutiny

3 when overruling austin, it explained why, roberts concurring, no such passage explaining why it reversed talley or mcintyre or aclf or waychtower tornnillo wooley  or riley. 

4 the passages about disclaimers were dicta, after the court resolved the express advocacy argument. plaintiffs did not argue the point. the word disclaimer did not come up at either oral argument, 

5 the discussion was in terms of a less restrictive means than the ban in austin. here there is no such ban at issue.   

6 c u correctly said that the court disclaimer and disclosure cases have used the term exacting scrutiny. but mcinytre, like meyer v grant, used exacting scrutiny as a synonym for strict scrutiny. the term is a contronym.  

it then discussed how some of these cases used exacting scrutiny as a less demanding standard. 

 

 

 UESDAY OCTOBER 6th 2026 may go down as one of the most consequential days in the history of mathematics. That was when OpenAI, an American artificial-intelligence firm, announced that its AI agents, powered by an unreleased model, had solved at least 372 long-standing mathematical problems in a matter of weeks.wrong buffer.

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Supreme Court of the United States Cases

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021)
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982)
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Chiles v. Salazar, 146 S. Ct. 1010 (2026)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966)
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, 146 S. Ct. 1114 (2026)
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963)
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878 (2018)
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)
Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, 487 U.S. 781 (1988)
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023)
Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Federal Appellate and District Court Cases

ACLU of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004)
Americans for Prosperity v. Meyer, No. 24-2933 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2026)
Citizens for Responsible Government State Political Action Committee v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2000)
Coalition for Secular Government v. Williams, 815 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2016)
Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (W.D. Wis. 2007)
Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004)
No on E v. Chiu, 85 F.4th 493 (9th Cir. 2023)
Rosen v. Port of Portland, 650 F. Supp. 858 (D. Or. 1986)
Stewart v. Taylor, 104 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1997)
Thompson v. Hebdon, 7 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2021)
Washington Post Co. v. McManus, 944 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2019)
Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)
Yes on Term Limits, Inc. v. Savage, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008)

State and Local Court Cases

Alaskans for a Common Language v. Kritz, 170 P.3d 183 (Alaska 2007)
Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission, No. S-18641 (Alaska Apr. 12, 2024)
Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, 247 Ariz. 269, 448 P.3d 890 (2019)
Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State, No. CV-24-0062-PR (Ariz. June 2, 2026)
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 368 Mass. 92, 329 N.E.2d 606 (Mass. 1975)
Commonwealth v. Wadzinski, 492 Pa. 35, 422 A.2d 124 (Pa. 1980)
Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415, 966 A.2d 432 (Md. 2009)
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 217 Ariz. 103, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)
Painesville Building Department v. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 89 Ohio St. 3d 574 (Ohio 2000)
People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Cal. Super. 1962)
People v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 387, 506 N.E.2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)
State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (La. 1989)
State v. Fulton, 337 So. 2d 1066 (La. 1976)
State v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995)
State v. North Dakota Education Association, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978)
Texas v. Doe, 61 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2001)
Vondria v. Miller, 942 P.2d 1134 (Alaska 1997)

Constitutional Provisions

Ariz. Const. art. II, § 6

---