Scott Ehrisman notices the latest evidence of Jason Gant's unfitness for the office of Secretary of State. In response to Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Myers's claim that Secretary Gant is using his office to advance partisan interests, Secretary Gant snorts churlishly,
Absolutely not—that's absurd and pathetic. That's just the sad attempt of publicity [Jason Gant, quoted in Tess Hedrick, "Michael Myers Intends to Sue Secretary of State Jason Gant," KSFY.com, 2014.07.29].
Churlish is Leo Kallis's word for Gant's retort. Kallis says Gant's snarkery (that's my word) proves once again that "he's a partisan hack, not a statesman."
Now granted, Myers did call Gant a "hit man for the Republican machine in Pierre" first. As a blogger, I have some obligation to respect folks who can dish back as good as they get.
But Jason Gant isn't a blogger. For five more months, he is the Secretary of State, the chief election officer of South Dakota. More than any other citizen of our state, the Secretary of State has an obligation to speak impartially of every candidate on the ballot that he prints and distributes and counts.
The National Association of Secretaries of State includes this statement of ethics in its constitution:
The role of Secretary of State is a noble calling, and carries a high ethical mandate and a conscientious duty to our democracy. Accordingly, Association members commit to the following:
- Adhering to the highest standards of excellence that will nurture and maintain the public trust;
- Placing loyalty to state and federal constitutions, the law, and ethical principles above private or political gain; and
- For those Secretaries of State who serve as their state's chief elections official, practicing fair and unbiased election administration that recognizes each eligible citizen's right to cast his or her vote, and for that vote to be counted with the highest regard to constitutional foundations [NASS Constitution, Article III, as amended 2008.02.10].
Calling candidates names doesn't nurture public trust, and it doesn't look unbiased.
When he leaves Pierre, Citizen Gant can guest-blog for his former flunky Pat Powers and call Myers and Kallis and Stan Adelstein and me and everyone else who has challenged him all the names he wants.
But a sitting Secretary of State who calls a standing candidate absurd, pathetic, and sad breaches the public trust in his impartiality.
As far as I've seen, Cory, no journalist has picked up on one very important point here. The reason there's no provision for independents to change running mates is that they never used to have to finalize their candidacies until the beginning of August, on the same date as the parties.
When I ran for Congress as a libertarian-leaning independent in 1996, my petitions weren't due until August 6. Since then, I believe our Republican state legislature has moved the date forward at least three times: first to two weeks after the primaries, then to the day of the primaries, and finally to it's current date in April.
When the legislature first moved the date from August to June, Ralph Nader sued and won, forcing the state to move the deadline back to August, but the ruling only applied to presidential candidates.
When the legislature tried to move the date from June to April in 2009, Secretary of State Chris Nelson warned, "At some point, an independent’s going to challenge that. Their question to the court is going to be, what is the state’s compelling interest for compelling ... an independent candidate to file so early?"
Nelson added, "The state doesn’t need to know who independent candidates are until August, when we begin putting the ballot together.” The 2009 bill, WHICH WAS COSPONSORED BY JASON GANT, was defeated.
In 2012, the same bill was reintroduced. Secretary of State Jason Gant testified in support, and the bill passed. CURRENT REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE CANDIDATE SHANTEL KREBS VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
There are 51 court precedents that say independent and minor party early petition deadlines are invalid. Myers shouldn't settle for a ruling that merely lets independent candidates for governor change their running mates. He should sue to have the filing date returned to its original date in August.
The only interest in an earlier filing date for independent candidates is not a state interest but a partisan one.
Kurt, I'm going to write up a separate posts on the legal merits of Myers's lawsuit. Your comment above will figure centrally in that analysis. Do you recall offhand the 2009 bill that Sec. Nelson spoke on?
On a related topic, someone ought to investigate Gant's decision to raise the fee for emailing the Libertarian and Constitution parties' statewide voter rolls to an outrageous $2,500. That de facto filing fee was probably the deciding factor in ending my Senate campaign this year.
Someone also ought to ask Krebs for her position on the subject.
...and I have a couple of those precedents you mention. Do you have a list of the other 49? :-)
Cory Heidelberger asks me:
>"Do you recall offhand the 2009 bill that Sec. Nelson spoke on?"
I think it was an easy-to-remember HB 1234.
>"... I have a couple of those precedents you mention. Do you have a list of the other 49?"
No, but the nation's expert on such matters is Richard Winger of Ballot Access News.
All right, I've got two from Winger: El-Amin 1989 and Anderson 1980. I'll go looking for the rest!
I wrote:
>"... and finally to it's current date in April."
I meant its, not it's. :)
Kurt Besides this fumbling partisan Gant going down as the worst SoS in South Dakota history. Just how difficult is it to run as an independent or register another party here in South Dakota compared to the two major parties?
Lynn asks:
>"Just how difficult is it to run as an independent or register another party here in South Dakota compared to the two major parties?"
Since 1938, North Dakota has had 31 non-major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate. Minnesota has had 65. South Dakota has had 6.
Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Constitution Party was able to put a single candidate on the ballot this year for U.S. Senate, for U.S. House or for governor.
Kurt what additional hoops do these 3rd party or independent candidates have to go thru?
Lynn asks:
>"Kurt what additional hoops do these 3rd party or independent candidates have to go thru?"
A Libertarian candidate has to track down nearly 20 percent of Libertarian voters statewide to sign his or her nominating petition, a Constitution Party candidate has to track down nearly half, and an independent candidate needs nearly 3,200 valid signatures.
My only problem with the requirement for independent candidates is the illegitimate early filing deadline. The requirement for minor-party candidates, on the other hand, should never exceed five percent of the party's total registration.
http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=51%20precedents%20that%20give%20minor%20parties%20equal%20ballot%20access
Cory see if this is what you are looking for.
"But a sitting Secretary of State who calls a standing candidate absurd, pathetic, and sad breaches the public trust in his impartiality."
Cory - that doesn't apply here. There is no documented evidence that Gant ever had impartiality! So, like, it's all OK, ya know... ;)
Kurt, interesting comparison of numbers of non-major-party candidates in ND and MN. Are SD's hoops tougher to jump through? Are our two major parties more avid in quashing outsiders than their ND/MN counterparts? Or is there something different in SD culture that has kept third parties and Indies from catching fire?
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Kurt, interesting comparison of numbers of non-major-party candidates in ND and MN. Are SD's hoops tougher to jump through? Are our two major parties more avid in quashing outsiders than their ND/MN counterparts? Or is there something different in SD culture that has kept third parties and Indies from catching fire?"
I'm not sure, Cory. I'm just pretty sure the state wouldn't come apart at the seams if we adopted less restrictive ballot-access laws and actually allowed our recognized parties run candidates in the major races. :)
Cory,
Both Minnesota and North Dakota had progressive movements that mattered. North Dakota's Non Partisan League elected a few governors, one colorful and corrupt enough to go jail and then be elected to the US Senate. The NPL is still attached to the state Democratic party's name to the best of my knowledge. Minnesota's Democrats are DHL for Democrat Farmer Labor party.
South Dakota's political leaders killed off all such movements in the 1920s and 1930s and they and they have been doing it ever since.
I recall that Gant is less churlish if you pay to play. Wasn't it an added feature of doing business with Pat Powers' political consultant firm when he was working inside the Secretary of State's Office that a client would be guaranteed an endorsement by South Dakota's Secretary of State?
How did the Attorney General not see that one, or is this just another convenient "omission" like failing to tell us that felonies were being committed inside the Mike Rounds administration?