Press "Enter" to skip to content

Charlie Johnson Makes District 8 Senate Ballot as Democrat: Olson Toast!

Whoo-hoo!

Really, I said that. I read the news that Judge Mark Barnett ruled that Secretary of State Jason Gant incorrectly rejected* Lake County organic farmer Charlie Johnson's District 8 Senate nominating petitions, and I said, "Whoo-hoo!" News doesn't do that to me often enough.

Judge Barnett appears to have agreed with my amateur legal analysis that, despite the county auditor's mistaken insertion of "Lake County" instead of "District 8" on one line of the form, Johnson's petitions "substantially complied" with the requirements of South Dakota election law. Johnson thus does not have to mount a second petition drive to qualify for the ballot as an "Independent." Instead, he will run against incumbent Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson as a proud and judicially certified Democrat.

Yes, Russ, he will run hard. And no, Russ, unlike you, he won't run from vigorous public discussion of substantial issues. In a year when the GOP leadership has been catching heck from both sides, Olson may find himself sweating a challenge from a full-time farmer who can talk the language of Stace Nelson voters as easily as that of the Scott Parsley and Roy Lindsay voters.

Oh yeah, did I mention the synergy of three solid Dems on the District 8 Legislative ballot? Do you think GOP will have the same kind of trynamic trio with Olson, Heinemann, and Stricherz?

Fundraisers, start your engines. District 8 is in play! Whoo-hoo!

Update 21:29 MDT: Hold on: According to Chet Brokaw's AP account of the story (on Real Clear Politics! Way to go, Charlie!), Judge Barnett says Secretary Gant acted properly to strictly interpret the law to avoid any possibility of partisan favoritism. It's the court's job, not the Secretary of State's, to provide the liberal interpretation that determines "substantial compliance" with the law. The court thus rejected Secretary Gant's insistence that the petition error "is much more than a simple technical issue." Judge Barnett finds "no one was misled." No harm, no foul... now let's have an election!

22 Comments

  1. Owen Reitzel 2012.05.21

    Go gettum Charlie. I wish I still lived in Madison.
    My dad would be pround of you and I know if he was still with us he would be out working hard for you.

  2. Jeff Barth 2012.05.21

    So what about Miss Stephanie Strong? When will she/we know?

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.22

    Jeff, Ms. Strong may be a moot point. The primary ballots are printed, and people have already started voting. Noem is effectively the GOP nominee. Barnett removed himself from Strong's case, and I haven't heard of a new judge or a new hearing date being set. Her only chance to be on the ballot appears to be to file as an Independent, and I haven't heard anything about her making that effort.

  4. Testor15 2012.05.22

    Congratulation to Charlie! No one should wonder about the power of the SOS office. We recently had a series of articles and comments about the SOS office, Jason Gant and Pat Powers.
    .
    Charlie had the resources to fight the State of South Dakota SOS for the right to be on the ballot. How many others have the ability to do the same?
    .
    What if the personnel in the SOS office has a secret or vested interested in keeping someone off the ballot? How do we stop it? If someone in the office gains power, money or influence, real or supposed, is it illegal and unethical? Why does PP still have the sites up in any form, why does he still have his name as registered owner of DWC?
    .
    Charlie Johnson's fight to get on the ballot is just a small tip of the iceberg ready to sink what is left of our democracy. A casual read of this case should be chilling to all. An in depth read is down right scary.

  5. Troy 2012.05.22

    I agree with Judge Barnett's assessment that it is the job of the SOS to interpret the law strictly and allow the court to interpret any nuance.

    In short, it appears the system worked as it should.

  6. Bill Fleming 2012.05.22

    So Troy, who is the one who tells the Auditor to go sit on the stool in the corner for an hour with their back to the room and wear the tall, pointed, cone-shaped hat?

    The Judge? or the SOS?

    Just curious.

  7. Troy 2012.05.22

    LOL. My suspicion is this is a learning moment for all employee's in the county auditor's offices around the state.

    Personally, I was extremely sympathetic to Johnson's claim as a case can be made it is reasonable to rely on the County Auditors for providing correct forms. A case it appears the judge agreed with. However, despite my sympathy and one who thinks having an election (vs. being dq'd by a technicality) my bias is toward strict interpretation. But for this being a County Auditor mistake more than Johnson's, I am comfortable with the judge's decision.

  8. Testor15 2012.05.22

    Strictly following rules is one thing but this case is a tip of a problem almost everyone wants pretend doesn't exist. Many times rules are enforced which have no basis in constitutional law, they are placed by people trying to game the system to their advantage.
    .
    We have gerrymandered districts and centralized voting districts now being counted and certified by partisans behind closed doors. Rules in these cases are there to limit participation by the people who own the government to elect their representatives.
    .
    So in this case, Charlie Johnson gets to have his name on the ballot but in the end, how do we know his votes will now get counted?

  9. Elisa 2012.05.22

    Just a point of clarification. I believe it was the democratic party that went to bat for Charlie Johnson and a second candidate as well. The party financed the appeal of the Secretary of State's decision.

    Personally, I hope the result is a review of the process by the elections board to make the process simpler so less petitions can be tossed because of technicalities.

  10. Testor15 2012.05.22

    Not everyone gets help from the political party. The SOS office should not need to go to court when in effect the rules need to be simplified so more can run plus more allowed to vote.

  11. Nick Abraham 2012.05.22

    I too, have fallen victim to an improperly done petition. I don't believe the SOS was wrong in this case, I think Judge Barnett decided that the error wasn't important, not that it wasn't there. And not to pick on Charlie, but if the petition hadn't been filed last minute, he certainly could have collected his I believe 42 signatures again. It's a lesson I learned the hard way. Don't wait till the last minute. BTW, it takes less signatures to run as a Dem for State Senate than it does to run for Madison City Commission, which strikes me as a little odd.

  12. Troy Jones 2012.05.22

    Side issue:. CHRISTIAN, I would love you view on Obama's 60% vote today in Ark.

  13. Lee Schoenbeck 2012.05.22

    Charlie - congrats on the opportunity to embark on a great and important political exercise - giving the voters an opportunity to choose. Frequently, incumbents don't appreciate the opportunity a challenger represents - to help define and affirm voters wishes (whichever way they fall)

    Corey - glad to see that you appreciate how the system works when a GOP Secretary of State does his job abd enforces the law, and a former GOP AG who is now vested with discretion that the Secretary of State is not, can apply the law in a partisan neutral fashion. I know this pains you buddy, but even in SOuth Dakota the law is fair.

  14. Testor15 2012.05.22

    It's good to see the GOP cheerleaders logging in to chat. GOP or DEM should not matter. A simple clerical error should not require a court order to get cleaned up. The ALEC legislators are always making excuses for their actions. Thanks for the heads up Lee and give our regards to PP and Jason!

  15. Charlie Johnson 2012.05.22

    Elisa is correct, it was the state Dem party that provided help to the legal challenge thereby providing the resources needed for the case. I was willing in part for the case to proceed from the stand point that state law needed to be enforced- that being a petition can NOT be denied on the basis of simple technicality. It was not a matter of the SOS having only black and white view to use. Black and white view of the law said that Mr. Gant had to follow state statute which he did not. The spin by his office since the court decision is purely political on his part. My only hesitancy in allowing the court case to proceed was the negative attention it would place on the Lake County Auditor's office which unfortunately it did. The people who work there are my friends. Two of the employees worked for lake County when I was county commisioner in the early 90's. They did nothing wrong. In fact the assumption that there was a mistake on the petition is a misnomer. The line where Lake County was typed in was proceeded by the words, "We the voters of ------". My petitions did hereby contain 69 Lake County registered Democratic voters. On the line where I declared my candicacy, it contained the words" Democratic candidate for Dist. 8 State Senate. Factually the petition was true and correct. Why the SOS decided to let the Lake County Auditor's office to be "run under the bus" on the case is a concern to me. Every Auditors office in SD is under the review and direction of the SOS. I fully intend to run as a strong and viable candidate in Dist. 8. I appreciate the support and encouragment that I have received by numerous voters whether D, R, or I. I'm thankful for Judge Barnett for his careful and wise decision. Now onward to the November election.

  16. jana 2012.05.23

    It's good to see Troy and now even Lee taking a more active part in the discussion here at the Madville Times.

    Congratulations to Cory for eliciting more comments out of these very respected conservatives than the SDWC. Ouch Bill Clay, that's gotta hurt!

    Cory's little hobby here has got to be the most active site for political discussion and I really don't think you will find this level of discourse on any other blog in the state.

    Might not always agree with Lee and Troy, but they do elevate the discussion.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.23

    Thank you, Jana! (And editorial note: the MT Style Guide requires that "Bill Clay" always appear in quotation marks.)

    Charlie makes a very important point: contrary to Secretary Gant's persistent arguing of the case, the language of Charlie's petition contains no mistake. The words on the page state exactly the truth: voters of Lake County are nominating Charlie Johnson to run for District 8 Senate. Nowhere does either codified law or administrative rule clearly specify that the first blank must contain "District 8". If there is an error, it is in the statute and rules establishing the petition and the failure to specify exactly what must be written in each blank.

  18. Testor15 2012.05.23

    The accumulated rejection actions of the SOS office is not accidental.
    It is a pattern implemented by partisan SOS / voter registrars across the nation. The SD SOS office is only doing it's part in the organized scheme. Charlie's case just illustrates how a judge has to intervene in order to uphold the people's right to continue participation in the process.
    .
    Lee Schoenbeck tries to make diversion points about the judge being a former GOP officeholder. Judge Barnett is now in office without a party label, to do all the people's business. His past party participation should have nothing to do with the results of any case presented to him.
    .
    Lee and the rest of the partisans reading this, why would you encourage anyone to create rules easily misinterpreted for political gain today, only to have the same games used against you tomorrow. You could be a Tea Party GOP running against an establishment GOP and get your paperwork rejected. The SD GOP party is not a big umbrella party, it is not always GOP vs DEM.
    .
    The 12 technically impaired petitions filed and rejected by Gant's office are only a tip of the problem with the office. Cory's petition effort and many more candidates will be fought by 'rules'. This will leave running for office even more expensive, bleeding limited resources and in turn helping the entrenched stay in office.

  19. Lee Schoenbeck 2012.05.24

    Jana - I enjoy reading the debate here - I just don't usually feel a drive to jump into it. I do view Cory as a work in progress. He has some good coservatives in his family tree, so I am trying to get him out around firearms and pheasants and redder necks -- we're going to transform Cory - eventually (ok - it's a life's work) :)

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.05.24

    I resist transformation... but I enjoy good pheasant.

  21. Troy Jones 2012.05.25

    Charley,

    I think CH's outlook is better. The law/administrative rules may be ambiguous. And, personally, I think it the job of the SOS to use the strictest interpretation. Introduction of gray discretion in the SOS makes everything open to charges that effect the perception of fairness. That is not in anyone's interest.

  22. Charlie Johnson 2012.05.25

    The SOS interpretation was neither black or white nor grey, it was the wrong interpretation of state law and statute. The use of terms black and white was political spin.

Comments are closed.