Blog compatriot Ken Santema is running for State Treasurer as a Libertarian. I could in good conscience vote for Santema. He knows his numbers, and his current effort to produce the most reasonable and original conservative reporting in the state indicates he would approach government with honesty and openness.
Alas, his candidacy may be as illegitimate as ballot-ousted Ryan Gaddy. My friend Elisa Sand points out the surprising origin of Santema's Libertarian nomination:
His nomination as a statewide candidate at the Aug. 9 Libertarian Convention came as a surprise — especially given that he was nominated by newly registered Libertarian Annette Bosworth. He was one of two Libertarians nominated. Santema said, when he accepted the nomination, the other nominee stepped down [Elisa Sand, "Political Blogger Runs for State Office," Aberdeen American News, 2014.09.05].
A former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate nominated Libertarian Santema. I won't declare him guilty by association. But I will declare his nomination a violation of SDLP by-laws. Article 2, Section 1 declares that voting members must have paid their dues and be registered Libertarians. As far as I know, Annette Bosworth-Haber was a registered Republican up to the time of the Libertarian convention. (Her name doesn't even appear in the current voter registration database.) If she, like Ryan Gaddy, changed her registration the day of the convention, she was not legally a Libertarian when she nominated Santema, Santema's nomination is illegitimate, and Santema's name should be stricken from the ballot.
However, Secretary of State Jason Gant has likely already printed the ballots and called UPS to haul those ballots to 64 courthouses in time for early voting to start on Friday.
I wish Santema no ill will. Part of me wishes he could replace Republican State Treasurer Richard Sattgast. But if Santema's nomination was illegitimate, can we responsibly mark his name on our ballots?
No! There is a good and viable Democratic candidate for State Treasurer - Denny Pierson!
Denny Pierson is an excellent choice for Treasurer! He served as a legislator when he was a teacher in Mitchell and later from Sioux Falls. He served in the House and in the Senate, and Dennis has been a successful business owner for many years in Sioux Falls.
If the Treasurer's post was unspoken for by Democrats, I'd also support Ken Santema if for no other reason than to get rid of these GOP political careerists who shuffle their desks to another constitutional office when they get term limited. Sattgast is just such a desk shuffler, and he's part of the deep-seeded problem of stagnant one-party control in Pierre.
The only desk shuffler on the SDGOP gravy train I won't vote against is Marty Jackley. That one will be left blank in protest of both Jackley and that jaded schmuck Chad Haber.
you don't suppose boz was unaware of the rules when she nominated him?
It seems that with all the questionable Libertarian-For-A-Day voter registration going on the day of the convention, Gant would have checked Bosworth's voter registration status. Maybe too much expect from Gant, huh?
What happened to Bosworth's current voter registration so that it isn't in the database?
Cory Heidelberger writes:
>"If [Bosworth], like Ryan Gaddy, changed her registration the day of the convention, she was not legally a Libertarian when she nominated Santema, Santema's nomination is illegitimate, and Santema's name should be stricken from the ballot."
I'll concede that Ken's nomination was illegitimate, but I'm not sure his name should be stricken from the ballot on those grounds. That punishment seems too severe for the crime. I'd have nominated him if Bosworth hadn't.
Full disclosure: Ryan nominated me for state auditor, so my nomination was also illegitimate.
Will SoS Gant issue a ruling or statement on this foul up?
Do nominations really matter? I mean, somebody yells out, "I nominate Bertha Butt." Somebody else yells, " I second that." And a third person yells, "I move nominations cease." So it is really up to the secretary to sort out the yelling. If they write something down wrong, it won't taint the process. It would be up to some disgruntled Libertatians to make it an issue, But from how it sounds here, they ended up with a pretty good candidate.
Kurt! I'm starting to see the pattern. You and Ken both spoke negatively about Haber's candidacy. Haber got his minions to nominate you to set exactly this trap for rational Libertarians who might make him look inept by comparison. Ha!
Kurt, you do make a good point that punishing Ken and you for a crime committed by someone else seems unfair. But if an individual is not qualified to cast a vote, that vote must not be counted. Bosworth and Gaddy were not qualified to nominate you two. Their nominations must not be counted.
Roger, I doubt SOS Gant will say anything about this foul-up, because I doubt anyone will file a formal protest with his office. Even if someone did bring this matter to his office tomorrow, he would likely hide behind the election calendar and say that since he's printed and shipped ballots, the matter is out of his hands and would have to be taken to a judge.
On the plus side, if Kurt and Ken get tired of campaigning, they have an easy out: they can say they've reviewed the law and voter registration records, they realize their nominations are illegitimate, and they cannot in good conscience continue to ask citizens for their votes. Are either of you guys game for quitting? I've got you covered!
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Haber got his minions to nominate you to set exactly this trap for rational Libertarians who might make him look inept by comparison. Ha!"
I'd actually thought of that. One problem with the theory is that Haber got himself nominated by arguably the least eligible person at the convention: Texas Republican Lee Stranahan.
>"Bosworth and Gaddy were not qualified to nominate you two. Their nominations must not be counted."
I see your perspective on this, Cory. I really do. But for the sake of your own well-being, I want to encourage you to just let it go (ha ha).
>"On the plus side, if Kurt and Ken get tired of campaigning, they have an easy out... Are either of you guys game for quitting?"
I can't speak for Ken, but I believe the future of the human race depends on me seeing this thing through. :)
Kurt,
If nothing else I admire your tenacity and willingness to continue the good fight.
It does have wondering though, with six weeks out from election day, there doesn't seem to be any substantial campaign by Libertarian candidates. Or am I just missing them. I know that Libertarian candidates don't have the financial resources major party candidates have, but they do have the internet as one of best campaign tools.
I posted on Haber's Facebook page a few times seeking information on his candidacy and campaign and got patriotic memes instead.
Kurt, that attitude (future of humanity!) is just the kind of positive, determined attitude I expect from a candidate. Carry on. :-)
And don't worry: the fact that I'm not filing a complaint with the Secretary of State should be all the evidence you need to know that I'm not going to endanger my well-being by obsessing over this fine point. But it remains a point, demonstrating that the Libertarian Party lacks the organizational skill to manage its own convention and reliably nominate candidates in accordance with its own by-laws.
That was an odd day to be sure, for far too many reasons. The Treasurer spot looked like it would not be filled. And I was OK with that since the Democrats had a good candidate for the position already (I've had some people I trust vouch for Denny Pierson).
At the last minute Shane Stranahan was somehow nominated for the Treasurer spot (I can't remember who nominated him). I was told afterwards I had a pained look on my face when that happened. And I believe it. I really didn't like the idea of someone from out of state filling the position and causing what I felt would lead to a lawsuit.
After a moment Annette Bosworth looked over at me and nominated me. I really didn't want to run, at least not this year. But I accepted the position to keep Shane from being on the ballot. I'm not sure of Bosworth's reasons for nominating me, but I have my suspicions...
I really don't know Shane, other than meeting him just that week. He may be a good person. I don't know or care. I felt it would have been wrong to have his name on the ballot this fall as a South Dakota Libertarian.
As a few people have noted, I am not really campaigning. Between trying to grow my business and blogging there simply isn't time for that. That is actually the part of this that really irks me. To me, a person on the ballot should be giving it their all. And that is not going to happen with me this year.
Hopefully in the next month I can catch up with Denny Pierson and do a blog post on him similar to the one I did for Sattgast.
Is there an official copy of the minutes for the South Dakota Libertarian Party Convention, that would be an interesting read
Roger Cornelius wrote to me:
>"... there doesn't seem to be any substantial campaign by Libertarian candidates. Or am I just missing them."
John English and Emmett have been working extremely hard on their campaigns.
>"Is there an official copy of the minutes for the South Dakota Libertarian Party Convention ..."
I'm pretty sure there is, but I don't have it.
If a bear works in the forest, but no one hears him, did he really do any work?
Work = Force × Distance
Substantial Campaign = Campaign Effort × (Press × Donations × Volunteers Recruited × Voters Convinced)
Roger's observation about the absence of substantial SDLP campaigns may be mathematically correct.
Roger had written to me:
>>>"... there doesn't seem to be any substantial campaign by Libertarian candidates. Or am I just missing them."
I'd replied:
>>"John English and Emmett have been working extremely hard on their campaigns."
Cory asks:
>"If a bear works in the forest, but no one hears him, did he really do any work?"
Obviously yes.
>"Work = Force × Distance"
Work = to exert oneself physically or mentally
>"Substantial Campaign = Campaign Effort × (Press × Donations × Volunteers Recruited × Voters Convinced)"
Substantial Campaign = campaign consisting of substance
(No "substance" jokes please.)
>"Roger's observation about the absence of substantial SDLP campaigns may be mathematically correct."
Or he's just missing them.