It looks like Secretary Krebs hasn’t cleaned all of the Gant/Powers stains off the walls yet:
Above is a clip of the top of page 3 of the official paper version of the state’s campaign finance disclosure form, complete with a Gant-era misspelling (see Marty Jackley’s year-end report, January 2013).
I noticed this error while reviewing the termination statement for the Libertarian Party of South Dakota, signed by LPSD treasurer Nathan Barton on April 14, received by the Secretary of State’s office on April 24, and signed and filed by Secretary Krebs on April 27, on which date I was a bit distracted by the filing of the veterans’ referendum petition against HB 1179.
This termination statement formalizes the practical termination of the Libertarians’ recognition as a party in South Dakota that took place last November as a result of the Libertarians’ failure to place a candidate for Governor on the ballot [per SDCL 12-1-3(10)]. In the eyes of the state, the Libertarian Party now has absolutely no legal existence, which would seem to mean that the last LPSD executive board, two of whose five members are not South Dakota residents and thus lack moral and legal authority to serve in such a political capacity, can not claim to speak or decide party policy for South Dakota Libertarians.
This termination statement thus clears the deck for an authentic group of Libertarian reformers to reform their party in South Dakota de novo, elect new officers, and reclaim their party brand from the interlopers who hijacked the SDLP at last summer’s convention. Such a correction would demonstrate that South Dakota Libertarians can be a bigger news story than a misspelling on an official state form.
The Libertarians will need to gather 6,936 signatures from registered voters (not the 7,928 listed on the Secretary’s webpage on recognized political parties, another bit of Gant-era detritus) in order to regain their official recognition and ability to nominate candidates for the South Dakota ballot. Senate Bill 69, the Incumbent Protection Plan passed by the Legislature this year, will not affect that signature threshold (assuming SB 69 ever takes effect, which it won’t, because we’re going to refer it and kill it at the polls).