No additional subpoenas were issued, and no additional evidence was allowed.  Judge Little listened to arguments, and asked very pointed, thoughtful questions.  For the McElroy and Wolf petitions, he must decide whether the Board’s factual determinations are clearly erroneous.  For the McDaniel and Stockard petitions, he must decide whether the Board’s factual determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence.  In each case, he must decide whether the Board properly applied the law.

 Judge Little has before him the verbatim transcripts of the Electoral Board hearings, together with the exhibits, and the Board’s written findings and orders.  He is required to defer to the Board’s factual findings, especially those involving the credibility of witnesses.  He is not required to defer to the Board’s legal conclusions, and may substitute his own understanding of the law, for the Board’s.  He is required to review mixed questions of law and fact under a different standard, as well.

 It would be interesting to apply Burcham’s and Anderson’s objections to the petitions submitted by “Change Decatur” candidates Daniels, Caulkins, Phillips, Grady, & Ruderman.  It would not surprise me if one, or more, would have lost challenges to their petitions.

 Burcham’s attorney argued that Wolf could face criminal perjury charges, for allegedly falsely certifying that several signatures were made in her presence.  An interesting assertion coming from the lawyer who represented the Change Decatur petitioners who submitted t least one petition page bearing nearly a dozen signatures so obviously made by the same hand that no reasonable person could think otherwise.