Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Lies about Judge’s Response to Withdrawn Petition Challenge

Annette Bosworth responds to Rep. Steve Hickey's decision to withdraw his legal challenge to her illegitimate nominating petition the only way she knows how: with a lie.

Bosworth campaign coordinator Daniel Freeman said, "The South Dakota Secretary of State, Attorney General, and now Judge Barnett have all agreed that our petitions are valid" [David Rookhuyzen, "More Questions Raised about Bosworth's Petition Signatures," Pierre Capital Journal, updated 2014.04.14 22:42 CDT].

Like the Attorney General, Judge Mark Barnett has said no such thing. Judge Barnett signed a writ of prohibition and was willing to hold a hearing on the petition challenge once all parties had been served. Judge Barnett has made no public statement on the validity of the petition.

Bosworth's response to the as-yet unanswered questions about the legality of her nominating petition, like her entire illegitimate candidacy, is a lie.

Update 13:40 CDT: Bob Mercer sums up the uncertain legitimacy of the Bosworth campaign quite accurately:

Meanwhile a list of questions remains unresolved regarding her petitions and the signatures on them. Whether you support or oppose Bosworth, her candidacy goes into the June 3 primary under a cloud, and no one knows with any legal certainty whether the cloud is legitimate [Bob Mercer, "A Few Changes Could Help Primary Elections," Pure Pierre Politics, 2014.04.15].

More to come on Mercer's assessment of our petition and primary voting schedule!


  1. Douglas Wiken 2014.04.15

    Thanks for clearing that up. I thought that was what I heard as well, but wasn't sure. That team really is a piece of work group.

  2. mike from iowa 2014.04.15

    AG Jackaround said suit dismissed due to lack of timeliness-according to Power's blog,Another World entirely,or some such thing.

  3. mike from iowa 2014.04.15

    Article also said Jackley,like the courts wouldn't have time to address the issue before the ballots were printed.Say what?

  4. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.04.15

    Iowa Mike, that's because Jackley has to attend a fund raiser being held by Bosworth's attorney Joel Arends and Dan Lederman's Rushmore PAC, for Jackley. I am sure that it had no influence on his decision to investigate Arends and Bosworth for perjury and suborning perjury.

  5. mike from iowa 2014.04.15

    I hate to question official integrity(if they had any),but Jackley treated this petition as if it had cooties(not my worry),now it is being suggested he didn't have the time to address it. Like my good friend Alaska Pi says so eloquently about asshat pols-PFFFTTTT!!

  6. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.04.15

    I have questions. Whose responsibility is it to cross check petition signatures, with voter rolls? How about cross checking petition with petition to make sure that someone has not signed for more than one candidate in the election for the same race? How much time is there between each of the processes between the petition deadline for filing, the registrar's office, the SOS, and the ballot printing?

    This is almost as bad of democracy as Iowa's first in the nation caucuses which are held and do not allow all the people in the state because of the fact that many folks may have to work. It's not like going to the polls where you have all day to vote, or being able to vote absentee. Is that really democracy? And that is how we lead off our Presidential election every 4 years.

  7. Joan Brown 2014.04.15

    Lanny, I agree. I'm getting real fed up with SD politics, as well as national politics. Something has to give.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.16

    Belfrage says two very important things:

    "Oaths matter."

    "Damage is done."

    Thanks for that link, DD.

  9. Steve Hickey 2014.04.16

    I'll be on the Belfrage Show at 8:20-8:40am Wednesday talking about this issue.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.16

    I'd love to hear it! Does Belfrage simulcast online , or archive audio?

  11. mike from iowa 2014.04.16

    Give Rep. Hickey his due. I will never agree with him on most issues,but he is a man among men for his willingness to catch flak when he posts here. Not many politicians have the intestinal fortitude to voice their opinions and engage their opposition. A bit of advice-listen to Cory for more ideas on what needs fixing in South Dakota.

  12. Steve Hickey 2014.04.16

    Thanks for the nice words. I don't view any of you as opposition. You are people who look at how to fix the state differently than me and may the best ideas win the day.

  13. SDBlue 2014.04.16

    Rep. Hickey did fairly well in the interview this morning. While I am in total agreement with him regarding the SOS and AG dropping the ball on the Bosworth petitions, I took exception to two things. #1: He is in favor of cutting the days for early voting. (He supports voter suppression.) #2: He endorses candidates from the pulpit. (If he does not believe in the Separation of Church and State, I suggest we tax his church.)

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.04.16

    SDBlue, we mustn't let our disagreements on certain issues cloud our recognition of issues on which we can find common ground and cooperate to achieve important goals. But the early voting discussion is important. Sounds like time for another blog post!

  15. Les 2014.04.16

    Early voting or lack there of equals voter suppression? How about early appointments to the Dr? or Early to the movies or grocery store like Sam's Club. Why do some always need special treatment to have fairness? I will thank you when I'm a gulf coast retiree getting to manipulate SD with my Tx vote as thousands already do.. Why not just let us vote year round, consumated by our implanted electronic ID in our forehead networked to our computer for an online vote.

  16. mike from iowa 2014.04.16

    The idea is to get more people to vote,not less,Les. Voting should be free and as easy as possible. People in nursing or group homes may only get out once a week and it may not be on election day. Any attempts to restrict voting,whether by accident or design is voter suppression.

Comments are closed.