Senator Stanford Adelstein (R-32/Rapid City) has demanded Secretary of State Jason Gant's resignation over general incompetence. This week the contentious Senator said Gant violated state law by failing to compile and publish statements in opposition to four constitutional amendments on the state ballot. Adelstein was one of six legislators to vote against placing one of those amendments on the ballot. He says that, unlike the previous Secretary of State Chris Nelson, Secretary Gant never sought Senator Adelstein's statement in opposition for the ballot measure explanations, a dereliction of duty Adelstein considers impeachable:
Six legislators voted against amendment P on the floor. This legislator passed to each desk a detailed specific statement showing the weakening of the requirement for balance by this replacement of requirements in Article 11 of the Constitution. Also, in my usual hesitant manner testified in detail. This Secretary did not contact me for a Con, as did his predecessor two years ago when I spoke and voted against an amendment.
A Con that seemingly helped carry the day, since the Amendment failed.
The Secretary deliberately and with forethought chose not to seek a comment from an opponent - as the law requires.... Why he made that choice will undoubtedly be offered in his defense during the impeachment that now almost certain to heard in the House [Senator Stanford Adelstein, comment to Madville Times, September 28, 2012].
Secretary Gant sees Senator Adelstein's challenge as sufficiently serious to warrant a defense:
In a prepared statement, Gant said he sent more than 50 letters July 9 to potential authors of pro and con statements for the pamphlet. By July 31, he was still missing statements, he said, so he posted notices on his office's website sdsos.gov via Facebook and Twitter [staff, "Effort Was Made to Get Con Statements," Mitchell Daily Republic, September 29, 2012].
I cannot confirm that any opposition-seeking letters were sent on July 9. (Legislators, care to search the files and forward me your missives from Sec. Gant?) However, a quick check of the Web confirms that the Secretary took a moment on July 31 to Tweet and Facebook the following call:
Per the discussion Mr. Mercer and others were having here yesterday, this Facebook post and its complementary Tweet appear to put Secretary Gant in nominal compliance with SDCL 12-13-23, which gives the Secretary of State an affirmative duty to identify and "compile" pro and con statements on ballot measures.
But now check this turn: Senator Adelstein has offered Secretary Gant a chance to rectify a gap in the ballot explanations by sending him a con statement on Amendment P, the balanced budget amendment. Yet Gant now refuses to publish it (and uses the classic admin-speak passive voice to avoid taking full responsibility for that refusal):
With absentee voting already under way since Sept. 21, it was imperative to have the pamphlets printed and distributed prior to that date, and for this reason, Senator Adelstein's con statement will not be published [Secretary of State Jason Gant, quoted in Mitchell Daily Republic, 2012.09.29].
Yes, voting has already started. According to the Secretary of State's website this morning, 15,000 absentee ballots have already been sent out, and voters have returned nearly 4,800. Yes, adding Senator Adelstein's con statement to the ballot measure pamphlet would change the conditions under which subsequent voters vote on Amendment P.
But if voters are operating under a lack of balanced information, and if the Secretary has an opportunity to provide balanced information, shouldn't providing that balance for the majority of voters take precedence over ensuring that everyone gets the same incomplete ballot explanation as the earliest voters?
Fixing the ballot measure explanations isn't hard, Jason. You can update the online ballot explanations in under ten minutes (well, given how Pat Powers probably wired things in the office, maybe thirty). You then fire up the printers and crank out two documents: a one-page supplement containing Senator Adelstein's con statement on Amendment P, and a bright chartreuse sign saying "Amendment P explanation amended! Read this first!" that every county auditor can hang at her desk during early voting and at every polling place on November 6.
Adding Senator Adelstein's statement to the ballot explanations is a small thing, Jason. You don't even have to admit that you did anything wrong. You just have to put aside whatever defensive little game you are playing and serve the voters by doing your job.
Or you can just step aside and let someone else do it for you. Either option is acceptable.
Mr. Stan, why didn't you send your side of the story to Mr. Gant on time?
Perhaps he doesn't follow Gant on Twitter and isn't Facebook friends with him.
If Adelstein wants Gant out he will need to do it the old fasioned way.
By defeating him at the ballot box. The rest of the GOP in the legislature are not going to remove him.
Gant should have packed boxes with Powers and left at the same time. No wonder Roust asked to get paid so much, she probably knew going in she would need hazard pay.
Since when did Facebook and Twitter become official means to notify the public of Official or Business record for the State OF South Dakota?
How much is Roust getting paid?
Testor 15, you are absolutely right. They shouldn't count. A phone call or a letter should be required.
Stan Adelstein For Secretary of State!
Adelstein should run for SOS to clean up Gan't mess. If I still lived in South Dakota, I would support him for that office.
"*Gant's* mess" is what I was going for...LOL...but, it's too late and I *Gan't* fix that mistake;)
Grudznick
To answer your question: I did not realize that the Secretary had ignored the law until I saw the ballot. No matter how little I think of him, I never expected that he would pull this trick. (And I had not really expected him to call me, in view of his obvious antipathy – but I surely thought that he would've spoken to someone else.)
You see, up to now he had been careful not to step across the line of criminal activity or anything that could bring him into possible "malfeasance," Now he did it!
Stan A
I too would vote for Mr. Stan for State Secretary. I would hang signs and knock on doors.
The buffoonery bloats to such enormous proportions it makes your head swell until you have no neck.
Mike, we're paying Sue Roust $2,500 per week, says Mr. Mercer.
Mr. H, can you or one of your friends good at doing googles find a copy of the contract for $10,000 a month? That seems insane. An insane amount. I would think some might find it interesting what she does for that amount.
Grudz, I don't have the contract in hand, but if you go to Open.SD.gov, you can find Susan Roust's pay listed as an annual salary of $130,000. I'm not prepared to call that an "insane" amount: running an election fairly and efficiently is a complicated job and deserves decent pay. Where the pay may be excessive is if we are paying Roust to perform functions that the Secretary himself and existing staff ought to be able to perform.
Consider this: two of Gant's patronage beneficiaries, Pat Powers and Aaron Lorenzen, resigned this summer. Powers made $66,950/yr. Lorenzen made $51,500/yr. Gant hired Pat Miller and Sue Roust after those resignations. Miller's salary is $67,000/yr. Roust's is $130,000/yr.
I will grant that Roust for sure and Miller likely bring more skills and trustworthiness to the office than their predecessors. But while we've rooted out two political flunkies, Gant has had to increase payroll by nearly $80,000 to bring in quality replacements.
Let's just say the Legislature has really screwed up the ballot measure process. It's good to see a Legislator getting the shaft. Now maybe some sanity will come from the Legislature's stupid attempts to discourage ballot measures.
The biggest screw up is allowing the Attorney General any part of the ballot explanation. This part of the ballot measure process should be handled by the Legislature's own staff, and only after public hearings. That way pro and con sides get an opportunity to state what they believe a legitimate ballot explanation should be. A public hearing and the normal Legislative debate in the case of the Amendments would also allow the LRC to be able to identify opponents to each side and request the pro and con statements from legitimate proponents and opponents.
The pro and con statements were meant to provide a counterbalance to the sort of efforts we usually see in the Legislature--the side with money and influence gets the biggest say.
Ballot measures are only a way for goofballs and out-of-state interests to try out there bug-splotch-dish ideas here in South Dakota. The legislatures should abolish the ability for any idiot with a pen to waste all the taxpayer's money and put goofy ideas out there where idiots might vote for them.
I'm just sayin...
Which reminds me of that story my good friend Mr. Fleming used to tell, but I'll save that for a more realistic moment.
That's an bizarre and completely innacurate statement. Ballot measures are the only way for citizens to overturn legislation that is bought and paid for by outside interests. I don't see any citizens signing petitions for ALEC measures.
No, it's not an bizarre statement. Citizens have the responsibility to elect sane and smart legislators (not Howie, Hubble, Kloucheck, Nelson, Breadford, and so forth) to overturn legislation. Ballot measures are used to create legsilation by idiots from the masses all the time. That is not overturning this Alec stuff whatever that is. It is the direct creation of laws by idiots and people who cant manage their own lives and are on welfare and smoke and play vido lottery.
When we have to compete for representation from our legislators, we need as many checks and balances as possible.
You heard it hear first, popular votes are a threat to democracy. Does anybody here agree with Grudz on this point?
I've got an idea, let's put it up for a popular vote. I'd love to see how Jackley would write it. It wouldn't have a chance even if we provided no Cons.
I'm not surprised you share the Governor's disdain for SD voters, though.
How smart does a part time legis branch have to be to get something past a full time exec branch that employs several generations of appointed staff Grudsnick? Or to run any control on that executive branch?
I can see why Walt has a bone to pick with Nelson, outdone by one of those silly part timers.
Please don't wish that I die in a wheelchair bus accident because I believe that insane out of state interests use our idiot-clause to implement their own stupid tests.
You are too young to think back even just a couple of years from the lefty-liberal perspective, so I understand that.
I don't know, Mr. Les. Who is Walt?
Our sec of ag Grud. It is also no secret that our state has been the test case for agenda through referred issues Grud, I do see your point and I would never hope for you to choke on ur taters n gravy but ya gotta quit the political spitting an sputtering while ur eating.
Thank you. We can all only hope Mr. Walt is more sound than Mr. Gant.
It's beginning to appear the Dauggard adminstration is more incompetent than were the Rounds and Miller administrations. I didn't think that would be physically possible.
Stan is correct, Gnat has got to go. I think it would be possible to retrieve those voted ballots and ask the voters if the vote presented, was their intent. Mine has my name on it as does everyone else's. So as long as money is no object to Denny and his pals, they could pay for the extra ballots and the overtime it would take to make the calls.
"Gnat has got to go"—hee hee! The irony of the misnomer tickles me!
Grudz, your dismissal of initiative and referendum does not tickle me. Initiated Measure 15 is not a product of out-of-state interests. Nor are the education and health care professionals who put it together and to a vote "idiots." They are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, who do vital work for our community. Likewise, real South Dakotans referred the Governor's corporate welfare and school-wrecking plans to a public vote with no help that I know of from out-of-state interests or any significant number of "idiots."
Referred Laws 14 and 16 were passed by a Legislature that lacked the courage to buck executive pressure and vote down bad policy. Legislation that could have provided the funding IM 15 seeks for schools and Medicaid couldn't get past a Capitol full of weakly briefed ideologues. Allowing us to vote out bad legislators every two years does not directly undo their bad legislation. Initiative and referendum are vital checks on the Legislature's errors of omission and commission.
I don't wish you to die in any accident Grudz, nor anybody else.
That's a story made up by a friend of yours that can't read through his hatred.
And apparently by just mentioning it you are offending the memory of anybody that has ever died in a wheelchair bus accident.
I demand a retraction and an apology.
We are not having this discussion. We have a Secretary of State who is not performing his statutory duty to fully inform the voters. Focus.
One thing is for sure, it makes voting easier. No con equals a no vote.
I don't really even see this as a Gant issue per se. He wouldn't have done it without the approval if not the orders of Jackley and Daugaard. Somebody needs to ask those two some difficult questions for once. Will it be open government panel member Jonathan Ellis? I can hear the laughs of people reading that question through my phone.
I would also pose the question of what is more embarrassing:
A. That we have sent out ballots with no con language for the Governor's pet amendments
B. This fact has not been covered by KDLT, KELO, KSFY, the RCJ or the Argus. Those are just the ones I checked.
There is a big story about a horse's mane and tail hair being stolen that has made the cut at most of these "news" outlets. $2,000 reward!
I'm on board for Gant going. It's just hard for me to see the legislature he was recently a part of giving him the boot.
I haven't heard one elected official come out and publicly back Stan Adelstein's charges. He makes noice and gets in the papers but he doesn't really get big public praise from the Senate. (I support what Stan is doing and wish we'd see other legislative members join him in his crusade)
Gant kisses up to leadership and did so while in the Senate. They aren't going to turn on him unless he really screws up now. Do you see Deb Peters jumping ship or any of her pals?
Cory:
A fun column would be to suggest "legislative bills to go after Gant".
1. A bill stating no secretary of state can endorse candidates, 2. A vote of no confidence, 3. An appropriations legislative investigation into his travel expenses to see if they have grown from the Nelson era. 4...
Where are the Dems on this stuff? With Adelstein going hog wild in his pursuit of Gant I would expect someone like Jason Frerichs or Mitch Fargen to come forward and say they are "concerned about the fairness of elections." It doesn't need to be Ben Nesselhuf but the Dems can't remain silent forever.
Very good question, Mike.
I also wonder where Stace Nelson stands on the topic.
Although if any of them have said anything, we know it wouldn't have been covered in the non-blog media. David Montgomery hasn't even acknowledged it in his blog.
By the way you can't "twitter and facebook the general public". If people don't look at your facebook page or follow you on twitter, that does nothing.
Did Gant send out those letters he claimed he sent by certified mail? That would be a good way to claim he tried to follow the law.
Just thinking it is ok to have no con language is unforgivable. Can you give an example of initiatives in the past that have not had both pro and con language and/or statistics on how rare it is if it has indeed happened? I'm guessing it has never happened before.
If you want to talk about a waste of taxpayer money, how about paying $130k annually to Roust to make sure the election is fair, but somehow she lets this slip through the cracks. At any cost, not doing one's job is a waste of taxpayer money so we can count Gant's entire salary and expenses as well.
I'm not sure Gant should be the only fall guy for decades-long Republican Party efforts to needlessly bureaucratize the ballot measure process. Gant's failure here is just a natural extension of Republican efforts over the years to discourage the public's right to petition for and against laws and get them on the ballot. The excuse has always been that the Legislature's ballot measures (Constitutional Amendments) never get enough attention, and therefore lose. They whined for years that too many petitioned ballot measures were on the ballot, and then it was pointed out to them that the Legislature put most of the measure on the ballot.
Face some facts. The SD Legislature has finally got what it wants--a lot of attention to the Pro side of their amendments. The fact that they do this by using an anti-democratic and illegal means is just the normal course of business for the majority in the Legislature.
Check out Ellis, Hickey and PP at the War Toilet for a few windows into the souls of darkness.
Where are the Dems in this continuing soap opera? The timidity of their past campaigns shows in how they are reacting to the tip of a huge story. The election of 2010 was based on trying to break one party rule of no-bid contracts and secret handshake deals since 1979. The incompetence of the managers of the 2010 campaigns appears to continue this year. The Dems do not have to 'encourage' this discussion but they could take advantage of it. Where are they?
The executive branch has the legis by the short hairs Donald and that is where the happiness resides. It is time to bring the legis back to the people.
Donald, in response to your reflection "A public hearing and the normal Legislative debate in the case of the Amendments would also allow the LRC to identify..."
There was a public hearing and debate on Amendment "P" and I had placed on every legislators desk a copy of Article 11 of the Constitution, contrasting existing with the Governors weakened proposal. So the LRC had no legal or other role - contrasted the Secretary's "malfeasance," to further publicity.
I was struck with all of the comments about how most of the other media have ignored the press release. Why do some you think that is the case?
Justin said "There is a big story about a horse's mane..." and I just cannot resist asking why there is so little interest in the Sec Gant - from the other end of that animal?
Mr Stan
Stan,
I agree with you and your intentions to get rid of Jason Gant because I have absolutely no faith in him anymore.
The reason I believe the media isn't covering this is because they see this as you having a personal vendeta against Gant. After Jackley found there weren't any broken laws they figured you jumped the sharke a little with impeachment talk.
If you want to get back in the media you need to start small and bring forth legislative action and some sort of a no confidence vote against Gant.
Mike, Jackley found PP and Gant did not steal money. They were never accused of stealing money by the Senator. They were accused of ethical violations and abuse of office.
.
Jackley in an effort to cover for Gant, decided to hold a phoney investigation into stealing money not dereliction of duties.
This is the reason SD needs a standing bipartisan ethics committee. The Jackley investigation was a joke and I didn't see a single media outlet report that we are the only state in the union without an ethics review panel (ie, we are the ONLY state in the union that would accept the AG's review of the SOS as sufficiently dealing with the matter).
Whether or not the media thinks this is a vendetta, if they can't see the problem and newsworthiness of our ballot not having both pro and con statements on every initiative, their news editors are incompetent.
I would like to think they are waiting for comments from everybody, including Jackley and Daugaard (they will be waiting a long time for that) on this topic and maybe they will have a story Monday. But they cynic in me that cancelled my Argus subscription and won't watch KELO news, says they are afraid they won't get the access to GOP politicians for the once or twice a year interviews they get with the Governor and John Thune if they are seen as challenging the Governor in any way.
When he was House Leader, Jerry Lammers famously would say again and again "you can do whatever you want, as long as you've got the votes!" That usually preceded more appalling legislation getting railroaded into law.
Jasan Gnat and other corrupt/lazy desk shufflers in our State Capitol will continue getting away with violating the public trust as long as they have the votes to protect their shiny butts. Senator Stan has had enough of the stupidity in Gnat's office, but honestly, Stan, this has been going on a long, long time. I think back to Homer Harding as State Treasurer ignoring his obligations to rescue other people's money from Citibank. Or to the lobbyist gifts to the Capitol Kitchen the Republican leadership ran in their offices next door to the State Affairs hearing room. Or to the conflicts of interest cases that GOP Attorneys General would slap on Democrats, but fully ignore those enjoyed by Republican office holders. Or the fundraising letters and phone calls to state employees to give to the GOP guv candidate ... or else. Or the contracts and state jobs to key contributors and governor family members. There is so much more.
Pierre has become a cesspool of corrupt business as usual, and everybody knows it. It needs a good flushing. Sadly, the voters don't realize just how badly it needs flushing.
Thanks Mike for your insight. Literally a sight in, that I did not have. I can see how some of my choice(s) of words could make this look like a feud/vendetta. Somehow the issue of Amendment P has been lost, and for that, I must now take some responsibility.
I think this Amendment does damage, that will permit chicanery, and manipulation by individuals that have only their personal political doctrine and objectives in mind.
Sometimes, I now realize, too many words -- not said with enough concentration on their possible misunderstanding -- can be as damaging as blank page. Both lead to what has been called "disinformation."
Stan Adelstein