Supreme Court Rules on Recount in Critical Senate Race — NEW Winner Declared By 3 Votes

The Indiana Supreme Court has stepped into one of the closest elections imaginable, overturning a recount decision and handing Republican state Sen. Spencer Deery victory by just three votes.

The dramatic ruling came only hours after the state’s five justices heard arguments over six disputed ballots — ballots that ultimately determined who won the Republican nomination in Indiana Senate District 23.

At the center of the showdown was a consequential question: Should legitimate voters have their ballots thrown out because election workers failed to put required stamps or signatures on them?

The state’s highest court has now answered that question in Deery’s favor.

The ruling restores six ballots cast for Deery and makes him the Republican nominee over Trump-endorsed challenger Paula Copenhaver by a razor-thin final count of 6,335 to 6,332.

The court ordered the Indiana Recount Commission to certify the revised totals and directed election officials to resume preparations for the general election with Deery listed as the GOP candidate.

The justices did not immediately provide their full reasoning, saying a more detailed written opinion will follow.

For Deery, however, the decision was about something much larger than saving his political career.

“I think it’s important that Indiana draw a line that says when voters do their part, that vote shouldn’t be at risk of either incompetence or even intentional incompetence by individuals who want to change that vote,” Deery said.

Six Ballots Flipped the Entire Race

The extraordinary legal battle began after Deery emerged from the May Republican primary with an almost impossibly narrow three-vote advantage over Copenhaver.

Copenhaver challenged the result and sought a recount.

The Indiana Recount Commission subsequently threw out several ballots, including six votes for Deery that were missing required county clerk markings.

That single decision completely reversed the election.

Instead of Deery winning by three votes, Copenhaver was certified as the winner — also by three votes — with a tally of 6,332 to 6,329.

Deery took the fight to court.

His attorneys argued that the voters themselves had followed the rules and should not have their votes erased because election officials failed to carry out administrative requirements.

They pointed in part to Indiana law allowing ballots to be counted when voters fulfill their obligations but election officials fail to perform theirs, provided there is no evidence of fraud, tampering or misconduct.

That distinction became a major focus during arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court.

Several justices pressed attorneys on why the six votes should be discarded when there had been no evidence presented showing the ballots were fraudulent.

Justice Mark Massa questioned how ordinary voters could possibly be expected to know whether election officials had properly placed the required markings on their ballots.

Justice Derek Molter raised another striking point: The six disputed ballots came from three different counties, prompting questions about how they could realistically represent some coordinated scheme rather than legitimate votes affected by administrative errors.

Copenhaver’s attorneys countered that clerk seals and election-worker signatures are important safeguards designed to authenticate absentee ballots and protect the integrity of elections.

But the court ultimately sided with Deery.

Trump Endorsement Raised the Stakes

The three-vote battle also carried political implications far beyond a single Indiana Senate district.

President Donald Trump had endorsed Copenhaver after Deery opposed a congressional redistricting proposal backed by Trump.

Deery wasn’t alone.

Several Republican state senators who resisted the redistricting effort subsequently found themselves facing primary challengers.

Trump-backed candidates successfully defeated six incumbent Republican senators. Deery and fellow state Sen. Greg Goode, however, survived challenges stemming from the same political fight.

Deery said outside organizations poured millions of dollars into efforts targeting Republican lawmakers who opposed the redistricting push.

“The track record isn’t good for people in my shoes,” Deery said, adding that simply surviving the challenge could prove to be one of the most significant political contests of his career.

Copenhaver, meanwhile, said she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling but accepted its authority and wished Deery well.

She continued to argue that the ballot-authentication requirements involved in the case serve an important role in guarding against potentially invalid votes.

Election Clock Was Already Ticking

The Supreme Court’s intervention came with Indiana election officials facing rapidly approaching deadlines.

Counties are required to begin mailing absentee ballots by September 19, with in-person early voting scheduled to begin October 6.

The court had already halted distribution of general-election ballots for Senate District 23 while Deery’s appeal was being considered.

Now the uncertainty is over.

After a primary, a recount, a reversed result and a battle before Indiana’s highest court, election officials have been cleared to move forward.

And after every legal challenge and every disputed ballot, the margin separating the winner from the loser remains almost unbelievably small:

Three votes.