INDIANAPOLIS — A Marion County judge has denied U.S. Senate hopeful John Rust’s request for a preliminary injunction, preventing Rust’s name from being on the Republican primary ballot in the 2024 U.S. Senate race.
Marion Superior Court Judge Kurt Eisgruber ruled on Thursday that the Indiana Election Commission properly interpreted the political party affiliation statute in its certifications of the six campaign challenges against Rust during a meeting in late February.
As of Thursday, U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-District 3) is expected to be the only Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate race in May’s primary election.
The political party affiliation statute in the Indiana Code states that a candidate is required to establish party affiliation by either:
- Voting in the two most recent primary elections in Indiana held by the party with which the candidate claims affiliation
- Receiving certification for the party with which the candidate claims affiliation by the county chairman of the party in the county in which the candidate resides.
In 2023, after Rust was found to have not established affiliation with the Republican Party, he filed a lawsuit in Marion County challenging the statute. A Marion County judge found that the statute was unconstitutional, allowing Rust to be on the primary ballot at that time.
After that initial decision, the Indiana Secretary of State’s office, along with the commission, appealed it to the Indiana Supreme Court. That first ruling was stayed by the Indiana Supreme Court and eventually reversed the Marion County decision.
The Indiana Supreme Court declared that the political party affiliation statute is not unconstitutional and that “Rust should not be on the ballot – full stop.”
After the Indiana Supreme Court stayed the Marion County ruling, it opened the door for Rust’s placement on the primary ballot to be challenged. Six challenges were submitted and the commission found that based on the affiliation statute, Rust was not eligible to be listed on the ballot.
In response to the commission’s decision, Rust filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the commission in Marion County. Rust’s legal team argued that for the entire filing period, the affiliation statute was not enforceable – stressing that Rust cannot be removed from the ballot for not complying with a statute that was enjoined at that point.
“In any case, the Commission decision cannot stand as it required Rust to comply with a statute that was legally enjoined from enforcement at the time he would have been able to comply,” Rust’s team said at the time. “What came after the candidacy filing period – the stay and the Indiana Supreme Court’s order indicating that it is reversing the trial court (decision) with (an) opinion to follow – does not impact Rust’s legal status during the candidacy filing period.
In Thursday’s order, Eisgruber said that even though the statute was enjoined, the affiliation statute “did not cease to exist.”
“Even when the state was enjoined from enforcing the statute, the affiliation statute was still duly enacted and effective,” the ruling read. “Rust was subject to its provisions. When the (commission) removed Rust from the ballot, they had full authority to do so because the Indiana Supreme Court had already stayed the trial court’s order enjoining enforcement of the statute before the (commission’s) enforcement action occurred.”
Eisgruber said that Rust did not comply with the affiliation statute as written, stressing that the commission’s “straightforward application” of the statute “was not invalid or illegal.”
“As we now know, according to our Indiana Supreme Court, it is also constitutional,” Eisgruber said regarding the statute.
Rust had previously compared his case to a recent United States Supreme Court ruling that allowed former President Donald Trump’s placement on primary election ballots. The court ruled that Colorado was not able to disqualify Trump from the Republican primary ballot in relation to the section three of the 14th Amendment and its insurrection ban. The ruling stated that Congress has the exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates.
In response to that argument, Eisgruber said that Rust’s argument focuses on First Amendment associational rights, compared to the insurrection-related section three of the 14th amendment.
“The cases seem to be birds of a different feather,” Eisgruber said. “The (commission’s) interpretation of the affiliation statute was straightforward: Rust did not meet the voting requirement (which he admits) and he did not receive certification (which he admits.)”
In a statement from Rust, he said that he has been “fighting back against the establishment” from the beginning of his campaign. Rust said that he aims to appeal the decision.
“My fight is far from over,” Rust said. “While today’s decision was not what we were hoping for, I am as determined as ever to get Indiana’s two primary law overturned. We are immediately appealing in the Indiana Courts and, if necessary, will bring our case all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
“I want to thank the countless Hoosiers who have supported our campaign over the last year and continue to stand alongside me in our ongoing fight for fair elections in Indiana and for (my name) to be returned to the ballot.”
Comments are closed.