SB 117 is a backtrack from recent legislation that required an unopposed municipal candidate to be left off the ballot. This legislation would provide that, if there is an election for any candidate for municipal office in the municipality, then all of the candidates must be listed on the ballot.
For all the sound and fury over the use of “may not” versus “shall not,” I would note that this legislation – in accord with the legislative style manual (“To negate discretionary authority, say ‘may not'”) – continues the use of “may not.” This still means that, under the described circumstances, an election isn’t permitted.
Geez.. they can’t even get the rewrite right?
It is my understanding that the present version of the law was the idea of State Rep. Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, who is also Hamilton County Election Administrator (meaning she gets to run her own election). But I have also heard that this did not turn out as she thought it would. She seems to deal in a lot of unintended consequences.
The “may not” versus “shall not” argument is bogus. Both mean the thing is not permitted. Not conducting an election for uncontested candidates is exactly what the statute says to do. The policy may be misguided, but the statute is not ambiguous.
“An election may not be held for a municipal office.”
“You may not take my car.”
Making these two statements does not mean that holding an election and taking my car are things I intend to give you discretion to do.
Now, if I said, “An election is not required to be held for a municipal office” and “you are not required to take my car,” then the actions start looking discretionary but not mandatory.