SOS Diego Morales Stays Silent in Henry County Election Dispute
NEW CASTLE, Ind. — A Henry County political candidate is taking his fight to the highest levels of Indiana’s election oversight, leveling sharp accusations of unauthorized enforcement, selective bias, and political interference against local officials.
The escalation follows more than a month of silence from Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales, who has reportedly failed to acknowledge a formal investigation request submitted in April.
On May 21, 2026, petitioner Randy A. Howard issued a formal follow-up to the Co-Chairs of the Indiana Election Division—Joseph McLain and Angela Nussmeyer—demanding immediate action or a direct referral to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.
According to court and state documents, the controversy began on March 23, 2026, when Howard was contacted by Henry County Election Board Member Kirsten Cronk (D). Cronk informed Howard that a formal complaint had been filed by New Castle City Councilman Arron Dicken (D), claiming Howard’s campaign signs violated a local six-square-foot municipal size restriction.
Howard states he was told he must bring the signs into compliance immediately or face a formal board hearing and monetary fines. Under the threat of financial penalties, Howard spent additiona time, labor, and campaign resources to modify and reinstall 26 campaign signs during a critical phase of the active election cycle.
“Sign Police” or Interference? Henry Co. Tort Claim
However, the legal ground under the local board quickly dissolved. On March 31, 2026, the Indiana Election Division clarified the governing law:
State Preemption: Under Indiana Code § 36-1-3-11, local municipal sign ordinances regulating size are entirely preempted and unenforceable during the 60 days preceding an election and six days after.
Lawful Size: State law expressly permits political signs up to 32 square feet during this window.
No Authority: Local election boards hold no statutory authority to enforce city ordinances or threaten candidates with local fines.
On April 1, 2026, Councilman Dicken publicly acknowledged that his original complaint was predicated on an incorrect interpretation of the law and had caused unnecessary disruption.
Believing he was intentionally targeted to stall his campaign momentum, Howard filed a Request for Formal Investigation with Secretary of State Diego Morales on April 20, 2026.
In the filing, Howard outlines a case for several severe infractions by the Henry County Election Board and associated personnel:
Ultra Vires Conduct: Local election officials acted completely outside the scope of their lawful statutory authority.
Selective Enforcement: Howard claims he was single-out and forced to alter his signs while similarly situated candidates were left unbothered.
Coercive Threats: Compliance was extracted through unlawful threats of bureaucratic hearings and illegitimate fines.
Howard said that the diversion of financial resources and the physical loss of irreplaceable campaign time materially impaired his ability to communicate with voters, potentially altering the level playing field of the election.
The Silent Treatment from the Secretary of State
Despite the gravity of a formal election interference complaint, Secretary of State Diego Morales’ office has provided zero follow-up.
“As of today, I have not received any response, acknowledgment, or communication regarding my request to Secretary Morales,” Howard wrote in his May 21 letter to the Indiana Election Division.
Frustrated by the lack of administrative accountability, Howard is urging the Election Division to bypass the logjam and protect the neutrality of the democratic process. In his compiled follow-up, Howard stressed the vital necessity of state-level transparency:
“If any process within government should remain completely pure and free from improper influence, it should be the electoral process. That includes the fair and impartial treatment of candidates, the lawful administration of election procedures, and the enforcement of candidate requirements without political bias or interference.”
Howard’s notice also explicitly alerts all involved parties—including Henry County Election Board members Butch Baker and Kirsten Cronk, and Clerk Jenny Grubbs—to preserve all text messages, emails, and internal memos under a formal spoliation notice, signaling that a tort claim and further legal actions are actively on the table.
The escalating pressure on the Secretary of State’s office comes during severe fractures within Indiana’s Republican leadership. In a major shift, Attorney General Todd Rokita—alongside top GOP figures like U.S. Senator Jim Banks, U.S. Representative Victoria Spartz, and State Treasurer Daniel Elliott—publicly pulled their support for Diego Morales and urged him to suspend his reelection campaign.
AG Rokita Calls on Secretary of State Morales to Exit Race
Citing a series of “self-inflicted wounds and issues,” Rokita stated he no longer believes the embattled incumbent can win the general election this November. Instead, these high-profile party leaders are throwing their full endorsements behind newcomer Max Engling, a senior advisor to Senator Banks, ahead of the state convention in June.
When contacted for comment, the Indiana Election Division declined to answer our specific questions, providing instead a copy of the formal response they sent to Randy Howard Thursday afternoon. That response is included below:
“Good afternoon. The Indiana Election Division has received your complaint. Please be advised that state law does not empower the co-directors of the Indiana Election Division to conduct investigations. At best, we would need to agree with the Secretary of State to perform a procedural audit but only if a county election board conducted an investigation under IC 3-6-5-31 or if a recount or contest action was filed in the county, or if a complaint was filed with the Indiana Election Commission. Should a complaint be filed with the Indiana Election Commission, then the chair of the Commission would need to place the item on a future agenda for discussion and then give direction to the co-directors to perform an investigation on their behalf to report back to the body at a future date.
However, if a violation of the Help America Vote Act or the National Voter Registration Act occurred, an individual would be able to submit a complaint using specialized paperwork found on our website. The complaints we can consider under these federal laws are limited in scope. For example, a HAVA complaint would allege a polling location was inaccessible to a voter with disabilities or a voter was not provided a provisional ballot; a NVRA complaint would center on certain allegations related to voter registration issues.
In our view, you are likely better served working with a personal attorney and exploring whether filing a lawsuit would be appropriate. There is a provision in state law (IC 36-1-3-8(a)(12)) that does not give any government unit the power to adopt an ordinance, a resolution, or an order concerning an election described by IC 3-5-1-2, or otherwise conduct an election, except as expressly granted by statute. If such an ordinance, resolution or order is adopted that is outside the scope of Title 3 (our state’s election laws), then this statute voids that action. Alternatively, you may wish to take your complaint directly to local law enforcement or state police for a criminal investigation.”
The Secretary of State’s office has not yet returned requests for comment regarding the unaddressed April 20th petition as the date of this article.
