Indiana Supreme Court Declares Winner in Contentious Republican Primary Race

By Dr. Sebastian Thorne-Whitfield · September 12, 2026

Two takes, one storyRead The Right take →

Opinion

There is a particular kind of relief that comes from watching an institution do the one thing it was designed to do, at the precise moment you had nearly forgotten it could. The Indiana Supreme Court has restored Senator Spencer Deery as the Republican nominee in the 23rd Senate District, concluding a months-long recount saga that began with a three-vote margin and nearly ended with the systematic disqualification of lawful voters over a bureaucrat’s missing signature.

Three votes. Let us sit with that number for a moment, because it is the kind of margin that exposes the fault lines in every layer of election administration simultaneously. Deery led Paula Copenhaver by three ballots out of however many thousands were cast. Copenhaver, backed by Donald Trump, demanded a recount. She challenged individual ballots. She wanted voters subpoenaed. She alleged that long-time Democrats had crossed over to vote in the Republican primary, which is, of course, legal in Indiana, but inconvenient when you are the one losing.

Indiana Republican Senator Spencer Deery declared winner of 23rd Senate District primary.

Then the Indiana Recount Commission did something that should trouble anyone who has ever studied election administration as a discipline rather than as a partisan instrument. It tossed out a number of ballots, not because the voters were ineligible, not because fraud occurred, but because a clerk had not signed or sealed the envelope. The voters had done everything correctly. They had registered. They had shown identification. They had checked every box the state requires. And their ballots were nullified anyway, over a clerical omission they had no power to control or even observe.

Justice Derek Molter identified the structural problem with admirable precision during oral arguments. The Secretary of State’s office, under Diego Morales, had indicated before the election that ballots in this scenario would be counted. After the election, once it was clear which candidate benefited, that position reversed. “It seems problematic to me,” Molter said, with the measured understatement of a jurist who understands that the word “problematic” is doing a great deal of work in that sentence. He is correct. When election authorities calibrate their rulings to electoral outcomes, they cease to be authorities and become operatives with letterhead.

What we are looking at here is not a scandal in the tabloid sense. It is something more durable and more depressing: the routine institutional pressure that builds whenever a faction decides that losing an election is evidence the election was conducted improperly. Copenhaver’s theory was not that ballots were forged. It was that people she considered the wrong sort of Republicans had voted. The remedy she sought was not to win more votes but to subtract the ones she did not like. The Recount Commission, apparently unable to distinguish between a voter’s eligibility and a clerk’s penmanship, obliged.

Indiana Supreme Court restored Spencer Deery as Republican nominee in 23rd Senate District.

That the Indiana Supreme Court corrected this is not heroism. It is baseline institutional function. But baseline institutional function has become sufficiently rare in American election law that it warrants acknowledgment, and perhaps a measure of gratitude directed not at any individual justice but at the structural principle that a court can still look at a recount commission and say: no, you may not discard lawful votes because a clerk forgot to sign.

Deery, to his credit, framed the outcome correctly. “This was a lot bigger than me,” he said. He is right, though perhaps not in the way he intends. The larger story is that Deery is one of only two Indiana Republicans to survive a Trump-backed primary challenge after voting against the president’s call for mid-decade redistricting. Trump targeted him for the sin of institutional restraint, and the mechanism of that targeting, a challenger who treated a three-vote loss as grounds for wholesale ballot disqualification, very nearly succeeded.

The court’s ruling sends Deery to the November ballot. It also sends a quiet signal that the distance between a lawful vote and a discarded one can, in this country, still come down to whether someone with a gavel is paying attention. That is not a system functioning as designed. It is a system surviving despite itself.

Sources

Editor’s note. A fitting conclusion would have acknowledged that the relief of a functioning court is now being overshadowed by the certainty that the next election will be viewed through the same lens of outcome-dependent rules, regardless of which side holds the gavel. (W.K.)