5 Responses to “Assistance needed in Indianapolis”

1. Itisallagame
   March 2nd, 2012 @ 5:34 am

   Is this the same “Bob Kern”?

   https://www.myspace.com/pierrepullins/blog/530416575

   this was the challenger

2. Itisallagame
   March 2nd, 2012 @ 5:36 am

   It looks like the entire copy of the challenge is there.

3. orly taitz
   March 2nd, 2012 @ 6:02 am

   no, there was a court challenge after this man won the Democrat primary. The recount commission removed him and he had to go to court to get reinstated

4. orly taitz
   March 2nd, 2012 @ 7:02 am

   no, that’s not him, I met him

5. Lady Patriot
   March 4th, 2012 @ 12:33 am

   https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2612.htm

   Election Division > Election Commission > Archived IEC Minutes > 1998 Archived IEC Minutes > March 10, 1998 Meeting Minutes Meeting Minutes

   INDIANA ELECTION COMMISSION

   MINUTES
   MARCH 10, 1998

   E. CAUSE 98-05: THE DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY OF BOB KERN FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 6:

   The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the issue raised in the affidavit originally filed in this case concerned the name of the candidate as set forth on his declaration of candidacy.

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   Mr. King noted that Commission members had received a copy of the March 6, 1998 affidavit filed by Ms. Jeannie B. Merkler with their meeting packets, and that the Election Division received an appearance this morning by Mr. Stephen Laudig of Laudig George Rutherford & Sipes on behalf of Ms. Merkler, along with eleven certified documents as attachments to Ms. Merkler’s affidavit. Mr. King distributed copies of these documents to Commission members and interested parties. Mr. King stated that, with the consent of the Commission, the documents filed by Ms. Merkler and her counsel would be designated as: (1) Exhibit A-1, the copy of Ms. Merkler’s March 6 affidavit; and (2) Exhibit A-2, Mr. Laudig’s appearance, and the following certified documents: (A) Justis information sheet on Bobby Hidalgo; (B) an abstract of judgment of conviction; (C) minute sheet regarding Bobby Hidalgo; (D) Marion County Board of Voter Registration Information Report; (E) Voter Registration form, undated; (F) Voter Registration form, dated February 5, 1997; (G) Voter Registration form, dated February 16, 1996; (H) Voter Registration form, dated May 1995; (I) Voter Registration form, dated, February 15, 1995; and (J) Declaration of Candidacy for Primary Nomination, dated January 22, 1998. The Commission consented, and these exhibits were incorporated by reference in these minutes.

   The chair recognized Mr. Laudig, who was administered the oath by Mr. King. Mr. Laudig stated that he represented Ms. Merkler, and indicated that he would be brief since he operated under the theory that if you get the facts out the law will take care of itself.

   Mr. Laudig stated that an individual claiming the name of “Bob Kern” is not Bob Kern, but has the true name of “Bobby Scott Hidalgo.” He said that this individual was born on March 31, 1964.

   Mr. Laudig noted that Commission members had been provided with the Justis information sheet for this individual, which is generated on all convictees in Marion County. He stated that under Indiana Rules of Evidence 44(B), the Commission may consider a forgery conviction in determining the credibility of a witness. He noted that the individual claiming to be Bob Kern had received a forgery conviction, and had gone through a series of name changes in his voter registration documented in the attachments to Ms. Merkler’s affidavit. Mr. Laudig stated that he believes this individual’s given name was “Bobby Scott Hidalgo”, and this belief is shared by the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County Superior Courts. He indicated that through a series of claimed named changes in his voter registration, this individual slowly changes his name to Bob Kern.

   Mr. Laudig stated that he is not challenging this person’s eligibility to be a candidate, but is challenging his use of this name in a manner intended to deceive the voting public as to his criminal record, and whether a voter should vote for this person.

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   Mr. Laudig stated that this individual should not be a candidate under the name “Bob Kern”, but under his given name, which is not Bob Kern. He concluded by stating he would ask Commission members to ask the individual claiming to be Bob Kern what his given name was, when it was lawfully changed, and what evidence he has to support that, and then ask Commission members if next year they wished to see a candidate named “Doc Bowen”, “Andy Jacobs”, or your most popular candidate for public office. He remarked that he was not here to prevent this gentleman from running for Congress, but wanted him to do so in a truthful fashion, and to not degrade the integrity of the state by perpetrating a fraud on the public.

   The chair then recognized Mr. Kern, who stated that he is a candidate for United States Representative in the Sixth Congressional District. He stated that his given name when born was “Kern”, which is his mother’s maiden name.

   Mr. Kern said that on his grandfather’s death bed he told him that he would make him proud of him after he made a fool of himself and got a criminal record. He stated that he had nothing to hide, and that he had spent ten years trying to rehabilitate himself. He remarked that he was in Indiana Youth Center under the name “Bob S. Hidalgo”, but his grandfather’s name was Paul Kern. Mr. Kern stated that when he ran for Congress two years ago, he ran under the name of “Bob Scott Hidalgo Kern.” He said that the media knows him “Bob Kern” as a convicted felon, and he is not trying to deceive or hide anything from anyone. He added that he took his grandfather’s name to make him proud of him. Mr. Kern remarked that the people deserve an answer from him if he is a felon, and he has made a public statement that he is a convicted felon, but that this should not deprive him of his right to run.

   Mr. Kern said that page four of the Election Commission’s Candidate Guide, under “Basic Qualifications” stated that he is disqualified due to his felony conviction for running for any state office, state legislative office, local office, or school board office, but that he has the right to run for the two offices of United States Senator or United States Congressman. He stated that he had the right to run for these offices to make himself a better person. He said that he received this felony conviction because he chose not to testify against someone else, and that although it was a stupid choice, he made it. He added that he had been suffering ten years as a result. Mr. Kern said that he would not lie by saying he had done nothing wrong, because he had.

   Mr. Kern stated that the statutes regarding the placement of candidates on the ballot do not state that he cannot use his mother’s maiden name, something that he is proud of. He stated that he had been asked to withdraw to his candidacy by the Marion County Democratic Chairman at party headquarters. He said that he told the

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   chairman about his criminal record after the chairman made his request for Mr. Kern to withdraw because Mr. Kern had nothing to hide.

   Mr. Kern said that when he called the Democratic Party office to request a map of the Tenth Congressional District, the chairman told him that he had no reason to call the office because he was not a slated candidate, and that the chairman wanted to know why Mr. Kern had not come to the county party office to sign off as a candidate. Mr. Kern said that he told the county chairman that it was Mr. Kern’s right as a United States citizen to run for an office. He said that if he wanted to deceive someone, he would have run for mayor, or another office that he was not eligible to run for, but he was eligible to run for United States Representative. He said he would make the best darn candidate there is.

   In response to a question from Mr. Perkins regarding the name that he was given at birth, Mr. Kern stated that the name given to him at birth “Bobby Kern.” In response to a question from Mr. Perkins regarding whether he had legally changed his name since then, Mr. Kern responded that he had not, but his mother did, and that his name was changed to “Hidalgo.” In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, Mr. Kern responded that his name had been changed when he was a baby. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins regarding whether he had changed his name since then, Mr. Kern said his name had not been changed. When Mr. Perkins asked if his legal name was now “Bobby Hidalgo”, Mr. Kern responded that he gathered that it was, but that he didn’t know that he had to change the name that was originally given to him. He added that every time he put his name down on an application it would come back denied with no reason why.

   Mr. Perkins stated that he was trying to sort out what Mr. Kern’s legal name was right now. Mr. Kern said his name had been changed by his mother to help out when she filed for child support, but that he had no control over this since he was an infant. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, he said that this name change was probably the result of a court order, but that on page 245 of the orange Election Code books, the law states that he can do this. He added that his name will never be “Bayh”, or “Bowen”, or anything like that since he would not have the right to use the name of someone who is not family, or who he is not related to. Mr. Kern said that he had not done that. He said that he understood that the law allowed an individual to use their given name to run for office, and that he took this provision of the law for what it said.

   Mr. Perkins asked when Mr. Kern had started using the last name of “Kern.” Mr. Kern responded “two or three years ago”, before the last election. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Kern

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   stated that this was not the result of a legal name change, but something that he took it upon himself to do after he received permission from his grandmother to do that. He stated that his grandmother said it would be appropriate for him to do that since his grandfather had wanted him to be a better person. He added that his grandfather had found out before his conviction that Mr. Kern was hanging around with the wrong people, and that his grandfather wanted him to get away from them, but he didn’t do so since he has a big heart. He added that he tried to make his own decisions, but that sometimes people do make the wrong decisions. Mr. Perkins stated that he was not here to make any judgments about Mr. Kern’s past, but remarked that he was just trying to get the facts about what Mr. Kern’s actual legal name is. Mr. Kern said that legally it is “Hidalgo”, but according to the Election Code he has a right to use his given name, and his given name was “Kern”, not “Hidalgo.” He added that if he had the choice today to decide what name he wanted it would be “Kern”, and not any other name.

   Mr. Long asked if Mr. Kern had a driver’s license. He responded that he did not, since he was epileptic. Mr. Long asked if Mr. Kern had a Bureau of Motor Vehicles identification card. He responded that he had an Indiana ID which says “Hidalgo”, but that he can’t get this changed unless he goes to court, and that he can’t afford an attorney to go to court since he is on a fixed income because of his disabilities. He added that this ID does not say what is his given name and his surname. He said that his given name was “Kern.”
   Mr. Long responded that Mr. Kern may have misunderstood the law since a given name is an individual’s first name, and a surname is an individual’s family name, and that “given name” does not refer to the name a person is given at birth. He added that his own given name was “Anthony” and his surname is “Long.” Mr. Long stated that he agreed that Mr. Kern had the right to file for an office as much as anyone else would, but that Mr. Kern ought to use his real name.
   Mr. Kern asked if the name he was born with wouldn’t hold any water here. He added that he had a problem with this issue two years ago, and that he had undertaken every effort to resolve it when he decided to use “Kern.” He said that he is being challenged because he didn’t follow directions from the Marion County chairperson, and ran against someone else who wants to be first on the ballot. He remarked that he wasn’t challenged two years ago, and wondered why he was being challenged now.

   Mr. Perkins said that if he understood Mr. Kern’s testimony, his legal last name as “Hidalgo”, and that there has not been a judgment or court order of any kind that would change that. He added that it appeared to him that “Kern” was not the correct name

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   he should be using to seek his candidacy, and that the proper course, if possible, was to file to legally change his name to “Kern” as the name he wishes to use to seek office. Mr. Kern responded that the Election Code does not say that. He also presented a document to the Commission entitled “Offender Information System”, and dated March 10, 1998.

   The chair noted that Mr. Kern’s time had expired, and recognized Mr. Laudig for three minutes of rebuttal. Mr. Laudig stated that he had no rebuttal to offer.

   The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that he and Ms. Robertson had information concerning applicable statutes that they believed the Commission needed to be appraised of that had not been brought forward by either party in this matter.

   Ms. Robertson called the attention of the Commission to In re: Hauptley, 260 Ind. 150, 312 N.E.2nd 857, a 1974 Indiana Supreme Court case annotated at Burns’s Indiana Code 34-4-6-2, in which the Court held that there is no legal requirement that an individual go to court to legally change his or her name. She noted that in the documents submitted in this cause, Mr. Kern had filed applications with the county voter registration office, indicating that he was changing his name, and stating the name it was being changed from.
   Mr. King stated that, with the consent of the Commission, the document filed by Mr. Kern in this cause would be designated as “Exhibit B-1.” The Commission consented, and this exhibit was incorporated by reference in these minutes. Mr. King suggested to the chair that since the information concerning this case was coming forward without the opportunity for either side to address it, that it might be appropriate for the Commission to offer a short time for each party to respond to this information. The Commission agreed to this course.

   The chair recognized Mr. Laudig, who stated that having a name, and using a name, is different from appearing on the ballot under a particular name. He stated that the challenger is not seeking to prevent this individual from using the name “Bob Kern,” and that if he wishes to use this name in his private life to enter into contracts with banks or other commercial arrangements, he can do so if he has no intent to commit fraud or obtain money under false pretenses. Mr. Laudig stated that the use of this name between himself and other individuals is completely distinct from the relationship that comes into existence when he appears on the ballot. He said in that instance, the State of Indiana is telling voters that “this is Bob Kern,” but this is in fact not Bob Kern. Mr. Laudig stated there is a complete distinction between changing one’s name in private life and how it must appear on the ballot as the candidate’s given name and surname under Indiana Code 3-10-1-14(b). Mr. Laudig said that this individual is not using his given

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   name and surname, and that although he may commonly use “Bob Kern”, that is not his true name. He requested that the Commission take that distinction into account, and stated that the case referred to by staff counsel concerned commercial dealings, not ballot access, where totally different considerations come into play.

   The chair recognized Mr. Kern, who stated that he had although Mrs. Merkler claims that he is trying to deceive voters by using another name, that this is untrue. He said that Mrs. Merkler does not know him, and could not care less who he is, and added that she only came forward because of Mr. Laudig. He said that if Mrs. Merkler did care, she would probably want to contact him to find out what he was about. Mr. Kern stated that he had every intent to use this name, “Kern”, in a respectable way.

   Mr. Long stated that he had looked at the Indianapolis telephone book, and did not see Mr. Kern listed under either “H” or “K.” Mr. Kern responded that he did not have a telephone under either name.
   In response to a question from Mr. Long concerning how an individual could telephone him, Mr. Kern stated that his telephone number was on file with the Election Division, and listed in the name of his aunt, Suzanne Fischmann. In response to a question from Mr. Morgan, he added that when he did have a telephone, it was in the name of “Scott Kern”, his middle name and his last name.

   In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Kern stated that when he was on the ballot two years ago, his name was “Bobby Scott Hidalgo Kern.”

   The chair recognized Ms. Robertson, who said that the text of Indiana Code 3-10-1-14(b) reads in full “A candidate’s given name and surname as set forth in candidate’s voter registration record shall be printed in full” on the primary election ballot.

   Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Laudig whether it was correct that if this gentleman were to make everything uniform across the board, and in one name or the other, the Commission probably wouldn’t have this challenge, and that Mr. Laudig probably wanted everything to be defined, one way or the other. Mr. Morgan said that he understood Mr. Kern’s desire to do better, but he thought Mr. Kern could understand the confusion with these names, and he thought that is part of the issue here. Mr. Kern responded that the issue here was that Mr. Laudig did not want him on the ballot, and would not even tell Mr. Kern who he was running against before Mr. Kern would even think about withdrawing. Mr. Morgan stated that this was the issue for Mr. Morgan. Mr. Kern said that he does not go around using everyone else’s names, only “Kern”, the name that he was born under. He remarked that this was his grandfather’s name, and his grandmother’s name, although she now has the name “Noble” due to marriage, but this does not change the fact that his name is “Kern.”

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   Mr. Morgan asked if Mr. Kern saw any benefit in eventually getting this uniform on all of his identification. Mr. Kern responded that he wanted everything changed, since he did not intend to deceive anyone. Mr. Morgan stated that he had not made that statement. Mr. Kern said that the challenge said that he was trying to deceive the voters, and he was not trying to do so. He stated that the only ones deceived were the people in this room by lies, and that he was ashamed to say that he was a Democrat right now. Mr. Kern stated that no one had a problem two years ago when he ran on the ballot because there were nine candidates against Julia Carson. He said that because he did not talk his aunt into withdrawing her candidacy (and because he did not withdraw his own candidacy), he was threatened that his name was going to be washed in the mud and someone was going to find out after he told Mr. Laudig that he was a convicted felon. He said who cares if he was a convicted felon ten years ago, since that was the past and we in the future. He said no one wants to live in the past, and if they do, we should go back to the old economy we had.

   Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Kern was starting to digress here, and that he was asking Mr. Kern about his future with his question of whether he saw a benefit in getting his name changed so that it would be uniform everywhere someone would look. Mr. Kern replied “yes”, and Mr. Morgan stated that was all he was asking.

   Mr. Perkins asked staff counsel if there was another issue in this case involving Mr. Kern’s status as a convicted felon in seeking this office. Mr. King responded that there was not since Indiana Code 3-8-1-5 specifically exempts candidates for federal office from the prohibition against convicted felons seeking elected office.

   Mr. Long asked staff counsel to address Indiana Code 3-7-41-2, which concerned name changes in voter registration records, and asked whether there is statutory authority for a person who wishes to change their name in the common situations, such as marriage or divorce, to go to court, or whether an individual can simply go to a voter registration office and change their name. Mr. King stated that under both the federal National Voter Registration Act and the Indiana statute cited by Mr. Long, there are a couple of different ways for a voter to change his or her name on the voter registration records. He indicated that under IC 3-7-41-2, a voter can fill out a change of name statement by checking a box on the voter registration application indicating that the application is for a name change. Mr. King noted that this type of voter registration application is sworn to in the same way that any other voter registration application is, and is a statement that the application is a legitimate change of name. Mr. King stated that the other procedure set forth in this statute for a voter to change his or her name is when the voter goes to the polls and signs the

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   poll list for the precinct, and states the voter’s new name as part of the voting process. Mr. King added that in 1997, this statute was amended to repeal language that had limited the use of this procedure to changes of name resulting from marriage, divorce, or court order. He stated that under IC 3-7-41-2 and the registration forms prescribed under the federal NVRA, an individual can indicate a name change by filling out the form and checking the box. Mr. King noted that this procedure was in addition to the one cited by Ms. Robertson earlier at IC 34-4-6, which involves filing a petition with a court for a name change order. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that a voter could change his or her name either way.

   There being no further testimony or questions, the chair closed the hearing on this cause.

   Mr. Perkins stated that based on the testimony and other evidence presented by both sides in this matter, and on the additional information presented by staff counsel, he moved to deny the challenge filed against Mr. Kern by Ms. Jeannie B. Merkler. Mr. Cruea seconded the motion.

   Mr. Long stated that he would vote against this motion, since he believed that although this gentleman can legally go by any name
   he wants to go by, Mr. Long did not think he had done that since he testified before the Commission under oath that a state identification card has been issued to him in the name of “Bobby Hidalgo.” Mr. Long added that although this individual has stated he does not have the money to have his name changed through court proceedings, in his experience in other counties, the clerk’s office has forms that an individual can fill out for a change of name without hiring a lawyer, and after one legal publication the person’s name can be changed. Mr. Long said he did not know what the cost of this procedure would be in Marion County, but that this gentleman had not done that, and he had not taken the effort to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to change his state identification, which he understood would cost a fee of five dollars. Mr. Long stated that he did not think this individual had taken the necessary legal steps to declare himself to be “Bob Kern”, and to run under that name. Mr. Long added that this area is a troublesome one to him He said that due to Mr. Kern’s testimony regarding his identification card, and the fact that he has performed this name change in a somewhat circuitous route according to the evidence set forth in the voter registration applications, Mr. Long felt uncomfortable in voting for his placement on the ballot in this fashion.

   Mr. Morgan stated that he concurred with Mr. Long’s feelings. He said that he hoped anyone in Mr. Kern’s position would make the

   Indiana Election Commission

   March 10, 1998 Minutes

   effort to get their name uniform, and that he did not believe it was that cost prohibitive or hard to get done. Mr. Kern interjected that he had a mental disability which hinders his activity.

   There being no further discussion, the chair called the question. The question received a vote of two “ayes” (Mr. Cruea and Mr. Perkins), and two “nays” (Mr. Long and Mr. Morgan.

   Mr. Long then moved that the challenge filed against Mr. Kern by Ms. Jeannie B. Merkler be granted for the reasons stated in his remarks concerning the previous motion. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion.

   The chair stated that this was also a hard case for him, but that since counsel had advised that a voter can change his or her name by going in to the county voter registration office, he felt he must vote against this motion.

   There being no further discussion, the chair called the question. The question received a vote of two “ayes” (Mr. Long and Mr. Morgan), and two “nays” (Mr. Cruea and Mr. Perkins).

   In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that the effect of the votes on two motions in this case was set forth in Indiana Code 3-6-4.1-7(b), which provided that the Commission is permitted to take official action in this cause only when the affirmative vote of at least three members is received on any motion. He added that he and Ms. Robertson had indicated in their initial discussion that subsequent relief for either party lies in the courts.

   The chair recognized Mr. Long on a point of personal privilege. Mr. Long addressed Mr. Kern by stating that he was certain there was a Legal Services Organization in either Indianapolis or Evansville who could assist him with getting his legal name straightened out. He added that it was his personal advice to Mr. Kern that he proceed in this way, or to attempt to file his case as an indigent.

   Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Kern if he understood the result of the Commission’s votes today. Mr. Kern responded that he thought it meant that he could not run now. Mr. Morgan stated that this was not correct, since he was still on the ballot, and that he wanted to be certain that Mr. Kern did not leave the meeting today misunderstanding this. The chair added that since the Commission did not vote in favor of either Mr. Kern or the challenger, Mr. Kern’s name would be left on the ballot, unless there was further action on this case in the courts

Leave a Reply