Last updated on 2012.04.06
We can't sue the Porcupine Post Office for closing before 5 p.m., but we can take Secretary Gant to court!
The Rapid City Journal reports that the South Dakota Democratic Party is challenging Secretary of State Jason Gant's rejection of three candidates' petitions: Alanna Silvis, who wants to run for District 5 House; David Mitchell, who wants to run for District 20 House; and my neighbor and friend Charlie Johnson, who wants to unseat Russell Olson from his District 8 Senate seat.
Eager readers will recall that Gant tossed Johnson's petitions because the top line was labeled "Lake County" instead of "District 8". Johnson has contended in various online commentary that his petitions still fulfill SDCL 12-6-7.1: petitions must clearly designate the district for which the individual is a candidate, and his petitions clearly say "candidate for the office of State Senate for District 8."
It is also worth noting that the "Lake County" heading was placed in that first blank by the Lake County Auditor's office. Johnson politely avoids this argument, but I've heard it from others, and I'll offer it myself: Citizens have a reasonable expectation that documents from their government officials will be correct and legal. On election matters, the Lake County Auditor is the local extension of the statewide election machine run by the Secretary of State's office. Secretary Gant has promised to "work with County Auditors across South Dakota to ensure that we have the best election practices in place." If county auditors are not putting the right information on election-related documents, it would appear Secretary Gant himself bears some blame for the rejected petitions honestly circulated and signed by Johnson's supporters.
Neither argument seems airtight. I am keenly interested to hear what my readers and a judge will say about those contentions (assuming the formal challenge contains either of them: I haven't seen the state Dems' filing yet, so I can't say what their legal strategy is for Charlie or the other two candidates).
These three challenges may have value in and of themselves as a way to protect voters and candidates from the mistakes of local officials and the possibly arbitrary, possibly extralegal exercises of executive power by the Secretary of State. But in practical ballot terms, I wonder: given the uncertainty of winning a challenge, might the candidates be better off pounding the pavement for another couple weekends, gathering another 88 (Dist. 5) or 98 (Dist. 20) or 102 (Dist. 8) signatures, and filing to run as Independents?
Correction: Alanna is not running in Dist. 8. Charlie Johnson, Scott Parsley, and Roy Lindsay are.
I think we need to test the system and let the lawsuit go forth. SoS Jason Gant got a little X-happy with his Magic Marker, of course on three Dems' petitions. "Fullest intent of the law" and "broadest intent" are important here. SoS Gant's slap-happy toss-outs were the narrowest definition so I think the Dems have a good case here.
Time will tell.
Thoughtless error on my part. I know she's from Watertown, saw the "5" in the story, then mistyped. Corrected! Thank you, Lorri!
And good points on the law and the process, Lorri. For those of us who dig the technical details, I am very curious to hear a judge's ruling on the legal intent of that first blank and whether the later blank fulfills the legal requirements.
I realize that some like Charlie didn't decide to run for office until just before the deadline, but for the others they should realize that you don't wait until the last minute because then you don't have time to fix technical mistakes.
When I become state Dems chair, to the extent that a state chair has any legitimate authority over primary candidates, I will put out the order that all candidates will gather their signatures and file their papers at least a full week before the deadline.
The troubling thing about Charlie Johnson's petition is that the top part of it was filled out by the County Auditor, in the County Auditor's office. Of course Charlie (as anyone else would) thought that it was, therefore, filled out correctly. For those who have said, well, he needed to check it carefully - with whom? Who do you go to, to make sure that the County Auditor did the job correctly - and why (up until now) would you assume it was done wrong? Personally, I think Gant's rejection of it stinks to high heaven for that very reason.
I would like to see a copy of Russ Olson's re-election petition that he turned in. Then again he has a full-time assistant that does everything for him.
The Secretary of State is making everyone fill out forms to the letter of the law. You can assume NOTHING. It is the candidate's responsibility to meet those exact requirements or be prepared to be rejected.
Except, as I say - where do you take a petition to make sure that it is exactly according to the letter of the law, if the County Auditor's office is no longer trustworthy?
The Secretary of State determines what is acceptable and not the Lake County Auditor. It's not a matter of anyone being trustworthy.
No, Michael, Eve's point is valid. It's not about personal trustworthiness, it's about professional and official trustworthiness. We regular citizens should enjoy a reasonable expectation that our elected officials and public servants will give us the right forms and right advice concerning legal matters, shouldn't we?
Unfortunately people can make mistakes. Legal matters are decided by who has the best lawyer and not by their intentions.
Still seems to me like poor petition design and that is something that should be corrected by somebody..whether that is a court, county officials as a group, the legislature, or the State Auditor or other executive.
As for post office closing times. They are posted. Post offices out here in the boondocks shut their windows at 4PM. For a time they also closed over the noon hour. Nothing like making it really hard for those working regular hours to get in to even buy stamps.
Michael, my point is this: When I take my taxes to a CPA, I expect him to do a professional job that (as long as I was not lying to him and provided all the correct information) the IRS will accept. That is what I pay him for. If he does not, then he is liable for all fines and penalties. That's the contract. We pay our city, county, and state officials to do their job in a professional manner. If we now have to double-check their performance - as with this situation with the County Auditor - then what's the point of paying them to do the job? Where and how do we double-check their performance?
You can't. You have to accept that people do the best they can do.
Exactly. Because we can't, we have a reasonable expectation that those public servants are giving us the correct information and documents. When those public officials err, the punishment must thus fall on those public officials, not the citizens trustingly led astray. Charlie's case wins, signatories' intent is respected, and his name goes on the ballot. Am I right?
Punishment should fall.
And if Mr. Charlie looses, all liberals must stop whining for 2 entire months. If Mr. Charlie wins, then the young Mr. Gant must to do a Porky Pig immitation and post it on the Youtubes.
It is agreed.
While SOS Gant is just doing his duty, he just bumped a Republican candidate from Dist 14, I think Mr. Johnson has a heck of an arguement to a judge.
What was the problem with the other two petitions that were bounced?
On a side note, sad to see the headaches for Ed Iron Cloud. While we may vote different on a lot of issues, I count him as a friend and I have enjoyed serving with him.
Mr. "H" I think the numbers are off for the amount needed for Indy signatures, aren't they a lot less?
Nope: I got those numbers from Sec. Gant's webpage on signature requirements for legislative candidates.
And lord knows if you get that information from a state official, you expect it to be accurate. Oh, wait... never mind.
I'm still waiting to hear what the problems were with Silvis's and Mitchell's petitions. Anyone have the scoop there?
http://mobile.mitchellrepublic.com/page/article/id/64236/