The complaint filed against Coroner Tyler Huffer by Prairie Township Trustee Julia Goon regarding Huffer’s election sign was dismissed 3-0 by the Kosciusko County Election Board Friday.
Huffer’s election signs says “Re-elect Tyler Huffer Coroner.” As Huffer became coroner through a caucus after Coroner Tony Ciriello resigned in 2022 to become a county councilman, Goon’s complaint was based on the premise that Huffer was appointed by a caucus and not elected, therefore his sign stating “re-elect” was fraudulent.
Speaking to the Election Board on Friday, Goon said, “I filed the complaint because when I saw the sign, I thought immediately to myself that that was not correct. I, myself, was appointed by precinct committee people back in 1980 and I took office Jan. 1, 1981, to fulfill (the term) of the trustee that resigned. And I was always told that I was appointed by the caucus.”
She said she filed the complaint because she still believes that Huffer was appointed to fulfill the term of Ciriello.
“He was put into office by a caucus vote. Fifty-six people voted. Tyler got 32 votes, I believe, and to me that makes him appointed to fulfill the term. So, to me, him posting on his signs to re-elect is fraudulent in my opinion,” Goon said.
She contacted the Indiana State Election Board and she said she was told they never made a ruling on “anything like this before.”
Usually, when you see re-elect signs, Goon said, “it’s an incumbent. And sometimes an incumbent has the advantage of an election. And I feel like this is his first time as a candidate running for county coroner and it should be that way. It should just say ‘Elect Tyler Huffer,’ not ‘Re-elect.’”
Huffer is running against Tracy Cutler-Wilson for county coroner in the Republican primary election. Cutler-Wilson also was one of the candidates in the 2022 caucus for coroner.

    Indiana code section 3-9-3-5 was cited in Friday’s hearing of the Kosciusko County Election Board on the campaign signs for Coroner Tyler Huffer. Copy of Indiana Election Commission Advisory Opinion Provided
 ANussmeyer   

In response, Huffer extended his gratitude to Goon for exercising her freedom of speech before the Election Board.
“With respect to the matter of the campaign sign featuring the term ‘re-elect,’ I have diligently consulted with multiple members of the Kosciusko County Republican Party, sought advice by legal counsel and conducted thorough research of relevant state statute. Based on these consultations and research efforts, I am confident in my ability to include the term ‘re-elect’ on my campaign signs,” he said.
For the board’s reference, he referred to page 163 in the Indiana Campaign Finance Manual, specifically Indiana Code 3-9-3-5. It defines an office holder as an “individual occupying an elected office.”
He also said he received clarification from Brad King, co-director of the Indiana Election Division representing the state’s Republican Party, “affirming that I am indeed considered an office holder, thus holding an elected position.”
Austin Rovenstine, Election Board member representing the Kosciusko County Republican Party, said Huffer cited a particular state statute and asked Goon if there was a particular state statute she was relying on to make her complaint.
Goon said no, but the Indiana Election Board did send her the manual. “But, like they said, they never made a ruling on anything like this ever before. According to that statute, in their opinion, he probably would be considered elected, but if you hire a lawyer, a lawyer might not see it the same way. I’m not going to hire a lawyer to fight this. You guys are going to make a decision today and I will uphold that because that’s the way it is,” she said.
Rovenstine said, “What we need to recognize is that this is a government board and that any actions the board takes would be government action, and as a result we’re bound by all the laws that bind the government, including the constitutions of the United States, of the state of Indiana, both of which contain very strong protections for political speech.”
He said he didn’t hear a specific statute that authorized the Election Board to act.
“When I look through the Indiana code, I was able to find one that might fit, or arguably fit, and that is the false representation statute that is laid out in Indiana code section 3-9-3-5c, which provides that a person may not knowingly or intentionally authorize, finance, support or participate in the preparation, distribution or broadcast of paid political advertising or campaign material that falsely represents that the candidate, in any election, is or has been an office holder,” Rovenstine stated.
“I don’t think that quite fits here because we all agree that Tyler holds the office of coroner. The debate we’re having is whether the manner by which he assumed the office of coroner can be reasonably described as an election. And the way I see it, I don’t think it would be proper for this board to take a position one way or another on that question because that’s a question to be decided by the voters - decided in the newspapers and on social media and in the diner and in Clunette Elevator and everyplace that voters get together to talk about these things. And you can do that.”
Rovenstine said he wasn’t saying whether either side is right or wrong, and people can continue to have that debate, but he didn’t think a government board may make a decision on that debate “because you can’t enlist the aid of the government to suppress your opponent in his political speech. I think that the First Amendment would prohibit that.”
He concluded by stating it was his opinion that the complaint should be dismissed and Goon and Huffer could “hash it out in the court of public opinion.”
Jack Brunetto, representing Bill Morton, the Democratic Party representative on the Election Board, said he and Morton did as much research as they could on the matter.
“From what we have read, I don’t see how he could represent himself anything other than how he has. He is the officeholder, and by law he is entitled to all the rights and privileges of any officeholder, and that includes to run for ‘re-election,’ and to say it wasn’t a re-election, just misses the fact that he is already the coroner,” Brunetto stated. “I have to say that I agree with him.”
County Clerk Ann Torpy, the third Election Board member, said she also reached out to the State Election Division and there is an advisory opinion entered by the Election Commission located on the last page of the Indiana Campaign Finance manual for 2024. She stated the State Election Commission has made a determination on the topic.
She also spoke to both co-directors of the Indiana Election Division and their opinion was the same as what Rovenstine and Brunetto had stated. “They are correct in this manner, and the commission’s advisory opinion is set to help county election boards make these determinations to help us when we have this type of complaint brought before our board. They have left it to where it should be sent to the General Assembly for determination if they want a clearer answer on that. So I agree with Austin’s and Jack’s assessment,” Torpy said, adding that she thinks the complaint should be dismissed because, based on the information she received from the state, there was no violation of the state code.
Rovenstine made a formal motion to dismiss the complaint and his motion passed. He also advised Goon that she had a right to appeal the board’s decision to the Kosciusko County Circuit Court. Goon said she was not surprised by the vote but she had no intention of appealing the decision.
Torpy asked Goon who advised her at the Election Board that there wasn’t an opinion on the matter as there is an opinion. Goon said it was a Valerie Warycha and she read Warycha’s email that stated, in part, “I don’t see that the Indiana Election Commission has ever ruled on this exact question, but there is an advisory opinion, 2015-1, that starts on page 163 of the attached Campaign Finance manual that is similar.” Under that opinion, the commission did not require candidates to include words or phrases such as elect or vote.
Goon reiterated that she wasn’t going to spend money to appeal the board’s decision as she was already involved in one county election hearing in 2018 because of Huffer’s complaint, which Huffer did not show up for though it affected 16 other candidates.
Later, via email, Torpy stated the information Goon received from the attorney for King came to the same conclusion as she had received and there was not a difference in responses.