Last updated on 2012.05.28
I rode hard on David Mitchell Saturday for not completely filling out his District 20 House nominating petitions and argued that his effort to have a judge fill in the blanks was unlikely to succeed.
The intrepid David Montgomery posts the South Democratic Party's court filing asking that Mitchell's petitions (as well as Charlie Johnson's for District 8 Senate) be validated. Montgomery includes images of the petition in question which show that Mitchell left one blank empty:
In the "Declaration of Candidate," Mitchell gave his name but did not fill in his party affiliation. The petition says "Democratic" in two other spots above that declaration, making it clear that Mitchell is seeking the Democratic nomination and that the signers are all Democrats. I suspect everyone around town knows Mitchell is a Democrat. Dems chair Ben Nesselhuf is certainly vouching for Mitchell's Democratiness.
But on paper, under oath and notary seal, Mitchell did not swear that he is a Democrat. That's what the law requires, and that's why Secretary Jason Gant rejected Mitchell's petition.
So what should the judge put first: the letter of the law or the intent of the voters? Does a liberal interpretation of statute here damage either voters or the electoral process?
The Mitchell case remains for me one tough nut. Readers, get cracking!
I don't think there is a disconnect between the "letter of the law" and "intent of the voters."
In South Dakota, getting on the ballot isn't brain surgery (read the instructions, fill out form and go to a local basketball game or two and you are set).
I love primaries and contested elections. Good for the system. But not at the expense of chaos. Once you "interpret," everything is open and that is not the intent of the voters.
Yes, a liberal interpretation would be to let him on the ballot. The people are harmed more if he is left off.
Does south Dakota allow "write-ins" under any circumstances? If so, there's your answer. Troy, you're being too anal on this, imho.
Hard to say. Why did he leave one of the spots blank? Fill in all of the blanks!!!!
I also wonder if Chris Nelson would have let him on the ballot. I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what Nelson thinks of the new SOS.
There are no "write in" candidates allowed in SD.
From watching this kind of issue for many years it is clear that the plan is to keep people off the ballot. They system favors the incumbents of both parties. People complain that campaigning lasts too long. Then they have you turn in a petition seven months before the election for a two year term of office. With modern tech folks ought to be able to get on the ballot until September.
Mitchell and Johnson should run as Independents, Stephanie Strong too.
The problem with write in ballots is that people write in Ike because they can't spell Eisenhower, or Heidelberger. Then you have a "hanging chad" issue.
Even so, Mr. Barth, I submit that you can't really vote for anyone you want to if you can't write name into the ballot. Why is it we always think we have to make these things easy for the people administering them? Nobody ever said Democracy isn't sloppy. I say tough. Deal with it. Is it "We the People"? or "We the Bureaucrats"? LOL
If I can dial a phone or move money around in bank accounts, or buy things on line, using my voice, certainly we can figure out a better technology to allow people to participate in their government. I have guys who work here in my office who know how to do stuff like this. There is no excuse for it other than that key people in "the system" don't want to do it.
On Nelson: 100% sure he would have rejected Mitchell's petition, 90% sure he would have rejected Johnson's.
The wheels grind slow, but they do grind. Mr. Fleming, you know I always pay for my breakfast with cash because I don't trust those mark-of-the-beast plastic things you like. They track you when you use them and your money is open for any waiter who takes your beast marker to the back room to swipe it for your breakfast and then decides to buy some new wave rap music online before giving it back to you.
Then the banks mess up and you get some other guys purchases charged to you. What about when the banks mess up or the state secretary's staff mess up and your vote doesn't count or my vote gets counted 100 times?
"See" I will say. And you will shake your head and wish you had listened.
I stuck this into Mt.Blogmore first, but might be worth discussing here too.
The petitions need to be redesigned to eliminate ambiguity and obscurity.
In the case of legislative candidates, perhaps the petition requirement should be repealed and replaced with a statement that says something like
Notarized Candidate Declaration Form to be filed with A county Auditor:
“I, John Doe, desire to be a candidate on the ballot for the the next election. I wish to be labeled as a Democrat(___). Independent (__), Republican (__), Other_________________ (___).
Legislative District Number ______________________________________
Name printed as to appear on ballot _____________________________
Signature__________________________________________________
Date of Signing_____________________________________________
Notary Seal, etc.
In the interests of political parties, this kind of form should have an earlier deadline so parties could object and demand a petition if candidate is a local pariah or actually a member of another party.
I wonder, Doug: should there be some price of admission to the ballot? Troy has referred to the petition laws as a sort of basic IQ test: you have to be at least smart enough to fill in the blanks and follow instructions to run for office. Is asking prospective state legislators to get 50 people to vouch for them too high a price?
We accept the idea of that "price of admission" with initiative and referendum. We don't want just any old wild or dumb idea to get on the ballot; we require the activists to demonstrate some critical mass of support among voters for at least having the conversation in the fall. We don't want HB 1234 referred to a public vote just because Heidelberger doesn't like it; we expect Heidelberger and a few hundred other teachers and friends to go find 16,000 other people who don't like it.
By population of area covered, the signature challenge for partisan legislative candidates is about one tenth that on ballot measure activists. Do we really want to let a candidate access the ballot without so much as a second from the floor?
As for write-ins... I understand the challenge Mr. Barth mentions of verifying names and voter intent ("Jim Johnson? Which one?"). If people do write in "Heidelberger" and spell it right, I want the Secretary of State to make sure he reads that name as me and not his fellow right-wingnut, my crazy cousin Aaron.
But as Bill notes, we've got information technology to keep this stuff straight. And as worried as I get about corporations rigging the voting machines, Grudz's financial Luddism reminds me of just how rarely the many hands who touch my credit card here in Spearfish or Madison or around the state actually go berserk and max me out after I buy dinner from them. We could build a secure voting system that would allow people to vote for whomever they want and still have it officially if not practically count.
Curious: in other states, does anyone have any idea how often write-in candidates have won, and under what circumstances?
Lisa Murkowski would be the most high-profile write-in, Cory. Hey, if they can do it in Alaska... I'm just sayin'.