Update, Oct. 26: After drawing criticism, a website launched by the campaign of Indianapolis Republican mayoral candidate Sen. Jim Merritt attacking Democratic incumbent Joe Hogsett is down.

IndyStar noticed the website had stopped loading sometime between 1:30 and 2 p.m. Saturday.

A claim that Hogsett's wages had been garnished in 2011 for failing to pay child support was removed from the site on Friday after IndyStar presented Merritt campaign officials with evidence that the assertion was false.

Read more:Jim Merritt's website attacking Joe Hogsett is down

Earlier: The campaign for Indianapolis mayoral candidate Sen. Jim Merritt has removed a false claim from its website that Democratic incumbent Mayor Joe Hogsett failed to pay child support.

The claim was removed from the website, which was paid for by the Merritt campaign, on Friday afternoon, only after IndyStar pointed out that the claim was not true.

The claim was paired with imagery of discarded stuffed animals and shattered picture frames, which remain as the dominant image on a website that went live Monday and includes a number of other criticisms Merritt has previously leveled against Hogsett.

That said, it was the child support claim specifically that drew the ire of Hogsett's campaign and raised concerns from others, as well.

"Let’s be blunt: Jim Merritt is knowingly making false, harmful claims about Mayor Hogsett and his family," Hogsett spokeswoman Heather Sager said in a written statement. "Jim Merritt’s personal attacks are small-minded, desperate, and beneath both the office he currently holds and the one he seeks to gain."

Creating a black agenda:How black leaders are pushing Indianapolis mayoral candidates to address inequities

Early voting:Here's where and when you can vote before the Nov. 5 municipal election

While Merritt's campaign removed the false claim, it left intact an assertion that Hogsett's wages were garnished to pay child support.

“The facts are, Joe Hogsett’s wages were garnished,” Merritt spokeswoman Whitley Yates said in a written statement Friday. “They were garnished based on a modification in reduction of payments. Garnishments are usually involuntary; whether it was failure to pay or failure to want to pay, semantics aside, his wages were garnished.”

The word garnished, however, might leave a false impression.

Megan Wells, an Indianapolis-area family law attorney who has practiced for 15 years, took umbrage with the characterization that a garnishment — a term sometimes used interchangeably with withholding — is frequently involuntary.

"People do it because it's much easier than having to process a payment yourself weekly or biweekly," she told IndyStar.

IndyStar's review of Hamilton County court records shows that it was Hogsett who actually initiated the requests to modify child support that led to the income withholding order issued in 2011.

Merritt campaign highlights Hogsett ‘personal scandal’

In a section at the top of the site titled “Personal Scandal,” the Merritt campaign points to a June 2011 court filing in Hogsett’s divorce, and originally stated: “As a U.S. Attorney, his wages were garnished for failure to pay child support.”

However, that filing makes no mention of a punitive wage garnishment — it simply orders any child support payments to be withheld from Hogsett’s income.

The preceding petition to modify child support, filed by Hogsett and his attorney in January 2011, cites a decrease in his income and a decrease in child care expenses as reasons for the request.

Previous agreements in 2008 were calculated based on his pay while practicing at a private law firm. By 2011, he was serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana.

The June 2011 court filing granting the income withholding order cites Indiana Code 31-16-15-0.5, which states: “in any proceeding in which a court has ordered, modified, or enforced periodic payments of child support, the court shall include a provision ordering that child support payments be immediately withheld from the income of the obligor in an amount necessary to comply with the support order.”

Again, neither document mentions a failure to pay, nor does the online case summary make any mention of Hogsett being admonished or penalized for failure to pay.

Wells said if Hogsett had been behind in support, the case summary likely would have indicated a child support investigation and contempt citation.

"If there’s no enforcement unit and there’s no contempt citation," Wells said, "then (Merritt's campaign is) misleading what’s really happening."

After IndyStar raised questions, Yates said the website would be modified. As of 2 p.m. Friday, it read: "As a U.S. Attorney, his wages were garnished to pay child support."

Yates refused to provide the name of the outside organization that researched and created the website, nor would she answer what, if any, action Merritt and/or his campaign took to ensure the information was true before the website was posted.

In a statement to IndyStar Thursday night, the Hogsett campaign characterized the attack against Hogsett as a last-minute smear.

“Given the knowingly false nature of these attacks and what it says about Senator Merritt’s judgment,” Sager said, “we think it is important that voters see this desperation for what it is.”

A Mason Strategies/IndyPolitics poll published Friday shows Hogsett with a significant lead over Merritt, 57% to 23%. Those numbers are virtually identical to the results of an August poll.

Some Republicans distance themselves from Merritt campaign

Merritt's campaign tactic has become a distraction for other Republicans running for office in Indianapolis. Colleen Fanning, a Republican running in a competitive City-County Council district that includes Broad Ripple, distanced herself from Merritt.

"As an elected official, my job is to champion ideas that move Indianapolis forward," Fanning said. "Personal attacks against political opponents don't accomplish that goal."

Other Republicans running for City-County Council seats, including council Republican minority leader Michael McQuillen, did not respond to requests for comment on the website.

McQuillen sent a note to Indianapolis Republicans warning that media outlets would ask them for comment on the mayoral campaign and advising them "to not grant interviews or start sharing thoughts with the public until we can all discuss our best options," according to a copy of the email provided to IndyStar.

Hogsett, who on Thursday released an ad touting an endorsement by Republican Councilor Susie Cordi, has received widespread bipartisan support from the council, which has a Democratic majority. His 2020 budget proposal passed 22-2 after only six minutes of discussion at the council's Oct. 14 meeting.

Kristina Horn Sheeler, professor of communication studies at IUPUI, said Merritt runs the risk of alienating his fellow Republicans by making the race personal.

"It’s possible that some of these tactics, which could be interpreted as low blows —especially this close to the election — could backfire if there is enough bipartisan support for Hogsett," Sheeler said.

She also cautioned, however, that by responding, Hogsett's campaign is drawing more attention to the website than it might receive otherwise. But voters have become so accustomed to personal politics that it may not garner the kind of outrage the campaign is expecting.

"The double-edged sword is that even though voters say they don’t like negative messaging, it also works, because it’s memorable and it’s emotional," she said. "So, this fear appeal, it has the potential to stick with voters.”

Merritt’s messaging strategy

It's unclear how many times the website has been visited and the Merritt campaign told IndyStar Friday that it didn't have that information.

By Friday afternoon, three Facebook ads featuring a link to the website paid for by Merritt for Indy were inactive. The campaign's social media page spent $271 from Oct. 17 - Oct. 23. The three ads were posted on Oct. 21 and Oct. 23. According to data from Facebook's ad library, those ads were seen on a screen at least 57,000 times.

It's likely that those reached fewer people than a television or radio ad might have. While its message was implicitly personal, Sheeler said it also hits on Hogsett's political vulnerabilities: persistent violent crime and the city's pothole-ridden streets.

So, why wasn't Merritt running the ad on TV?

An easy answer for that could be cash — Hogsett's campaign has significantly outraised and outspent Merritt's. Pre-election campaign finance filings show Hogsett has raised more than $5.6 million this year and has $972,381 on hand, whereas Merritt has raised $782,621 and has $151,580 remaining.

Sheeler also wondered: Does the ad toe an ethical line?

Many of the assertions in the website are presented merely as questions, and with no or scant information to back up the claim. Sheeler said that strategy somewhat enables the Merritt campaign to claim plausible deniability, a tactic that won't be unfamiliar to voters.

"That’s a strategy that President Trump is very good at, as well," she said. "He’s very good at saying, ‘Well, I’m just raising the question.'"

Merritt and Hogsett, along with Libertarian mayoral candidate Douglas McNaughton, are expected to appear at a debate at 7 p.m. Oct. 28 at the MSD Wayne Township Chapel Hill 7th and 8th Grade Center, 7320 W. 10th St.

IndyStar reporter Ryan Martin contributed.

Call IndyStar reporter Holly Hays at 317-444-6156. Follow her on Twitter: @hollyvhays.

Contact IndyStar reporter James Briggs at 317-444-6307. Follow him on Twitter: @JamesEBriggs.