Lederman Endorses Illegal Placement of Russell on Senate Ballot
Published 2018-08-02 by
Cory Allen Heidelberger
South Dakota Republicans are raising huge rucki over making sure every opposition party follows election law to the letter… and not unjustifiably so. However, when it comes to their own affairs, Republicans ignore the law.
What does legal hawk and SDGOP chair Dan Lederman say about this violation of state law by his own party members?
Laws for thee, not for me!
When contacted Monday and asked about the legality of Russell’s selection, Lederman declined to offer an opinion.
“I’m just going to say the state party doesn’t take the role of a court to interpret the law,” Lederman said. “Our job is to hold the replacement election, and we did.”
Russell himself is a lawyer. His vast respect for the law should surely induce him to decline this illegal nomination, right?
Law schmaw!
“You know, anybody can sue over anything, but the will of the voters is the key in this situation,” Russell said, according to the [Hot Springs] Star. “When you poll-down 72 percent of the vote last October and you get 60-some percent this cycle, to deprive you and to deprive the Republican Party of their candidate is a tall order for any judge” [Tupper, 2018.08.01].
That sounds less like the party of Lincoln and more like the party of Saddam Hussein. Polling results don’t change the law. The Republican Party could nominate Joop Bollen for President, but that nomination wouldn’t change the fact that Joop isn’t a natural-born citizen and thus isn’t eligible to run for that office. It’s not “a judge” that would deprive Bollen or Russell of an illegal candidacy; it’s the law.
But leave it to Trumpublicans to practice abject relativism in service of their dogged pursuit of one-party rule. When the law serves to quash their opponents, Republicans hold the law is supreme. When the law is an obstacle to their own ambitions (and notice that Russell does not contest what the law says), Republicans tell us to ignore the law and heed their mob.
The alt-left is working hard behind the scenes to help the fringe wing led by Ms. Hubbel.
Rorschach
I thought the fringe wing was led by Stace Nelson. Someone tell the fringe wing to certify its leader with the Secretary of State so we can all keep track.
doreen creed
Polls don’t matter. The law matters. He made his decision in June. You can’t have it both ways. He’s out in 2018.
I believe Grudz is referring to efforts by one of his friends who has on occasion purchased Grudz a plate of gravy. That person is working to get any and all members of the SDGOP alt-right fringe to run with the hopes of siphoning off votes. Apparently, if Stace Nelson won’t leave the GOP then Lora Hubbel will suffice.
To the point of this post, will Dems do anything to challenge Russell’s candidacy? It would seem like political malpractice if they do not.
Off topic, I hope Grudz buys himself a Blizzard today since it’s Miracle Treat Day.
“Foul!” You state the law says “that once a candidate has withdrawn, that candidate’s name may not be placed on the ballot in the race from which he has withdrawn.” It does NOT say that. You misstated and added to what the statute in fact says. The law simply provides the SOS the legal authority to take a name of a ballot after someone withdraws. There is NO prohibition from the person winning the nomination back anew. Anything not explicitly made illegal, is legal. Furthermore, the rest of the chapter has explicit provisions which require the statutes to be construed LIBERALLY to ensure the will of the voters is not defeated by technicalities. The will of the voters? They elected Russell in 20-6 with 72% of the vote in the general election in a record turnout year. In 2018? They selected him as their primary nominee with over 60% of the vote AND again did so ANEW last week.
Lederman and RINO company realized that if they push your narrative? They would be attacking Rhoden as he resigned from a place on the ballot and is now placed back on the ballot anew.
mike from iowa
12-6-55. Withdrawal by nominee–Time and place of filing. Any person nominated to any elective office may cause his name to be withdrawn from nomination by request in writing, subscribed and sworn to by him before any officer qualified to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. The request shall be filed with the officer with whom the nominating petition was filed pursuant to § 12-6-4, not later than the first Tuesday in August at 5:00 p.m. before the ensuing election. No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.
Last sentence in codified law says exactly what Cory says it says.
Rorschach
I agree with Sen. Nelson on this, as I have stated in previous threads. The law is a directive to the Secretary of State not to print ballots with the names of withdrawn candidates. It does not prevent any party from nominating a candidate anew who has previously withdrawn. Once Russell was re-nominated his name goes back on the ballot just as anyone else’s name would if they had been nominated.
Furthermore, the rest of the chapter has explicit provisions which require the statutes to be construed LIBERALLY to ensure the will of the voters is not defeated by technicalities.
More than 12,600 South Dakota voters supported the Constitution Party candidate for public utilities commissioner in 2014, and my guess is that we’re going to be hearing about the “construed liberally” principle a lot this month.
bearcreekbat
I have to chuckle now that the term “liberally” (in all caps no less, and which comes from the root “liberal”) has now become the mantra of our tea party aficinados who support Russell. Perhaps this might even open minds a bit and get consevatives to reflect on the propriety of trying to insult and demean certain voters by labeling them “liberals.” Maybe advocating for “liberal” ideals isn’t so terrible after all.
Stace Nelson
@Mike from Iowa
Cory: “that once a candidate has withdrawn, that candidate’s name may not be placed on the ballot in the race from which he has withdrawn.”
Statute: “No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.”
The statute does not contain the punitive prohibition that willing partisan eyes strive to conjure. It is a simple house cleaning statute that allows the SOS to legally take someone’s name off the ballot, which they cannot do otherwise.
12-6-56. Vacancies in party ticket to be filled by party committee. If a vacancy occurs by reason of death or withdrawal after a primary election, a party candidate for public office may be replaced by a new nominee if a meeting of the appropriate party central committee is held and the results are certified to the appropriate official within the times prescribed by SDCL 12-8-6. If the vacancy is a party candidate for presidential elector or statewide office, the vacancy shall be filled by the State Party Central Committee. If the vacancy is a party candidate for public office other than presidential elector or statewide office, the vacancy shall be filled by a vote of county party central committee members in attendance who reside in the affected district.
I honestly don’t know if Russell is a new nominee because he’s also the old nominee. I also don’t know how liberally one has to construe election law to make “old”, “new”, and “the same person” function as synonyms.
Does anyone know if there’s any precedent? It would seem that Lederman, Russell, and Nelson would be citing it if there were. t’s been a litigious summer. Let’s get the litigiousness out of our system by getting SOS, AG, and court rulings. Maybe then we can start talking about infrastructure, education, and healthcare, you know, those pesky little things called real world issues.
jerry
What Kal Lis says is a fact. What Comrade Lederman and Comrade Nelson say are along Duma rules
Stace Nelson
@jerry I joined the Marines to protect the USA from your Communism. Arguing against the voters to pick whom they want and a candidate’s freedom to run? That’s right up your Communist tree.
jerry
Comrade Nelson, I joined to protect the USA from the likes of you and the new Russian love that now exists in South Dakota. I always thought that what is now being represented in our state, was an external threat, I now see that I was wrong. The 40 per centers are a clear and present danger to our Democracy, my, how far you have slipped.
Stace Nelson
Comrade Jerry… Pffft! Sure you did anonymous “Jerry.” 🙄 You’re so scared of your own shadow you cant even post under your identity. Under Democrats, we had avowed Communists in the last administration and Bernie Sanders is even prouder of his Socialist affinity and honeymoon in Communist USSR. Ignorant narratives from people like you futily attempting to conflate the USSR and modern day Russia not withstanding, you and your ilk are linked at the hip to the Communist movement.
mike from iowa
Nelson. I saw nothing in the statute that says it is only a directive for the SOS. It is patently obvious once a name has been withdrawn from the race it cannot later be placed on a ballot, at least for this election.
But I don’t deal in alternative facts and psuedo reality.
jerry
My brother and I know every real farmer and real rancher in the state.
jerry
Socialism and communism are two different things, use your noodle to google. Kind of patriots and traitors.
mike from iowa
Good thing for Nelson and his ilk that Dems were willing to take on the challenges of another failed wingnut, know nothing Potus named dumbass dubya and save America once again. Looks like they will receive the call in 2020 if not sooner for a repeat performance.
Dicta
Stace is right here. I am really angry at a few of you for making me type that.
Sorry I made you mad Dicta, but I still want an official ruling to set a precedent.
At some point, Democrats or Libertarians may be in the same boat. The fact that Russell was put on the ballot without an opinion doesn’t set a precedent that allows other parties to do the same same thing. In the future, Republicans might be able to challenge a Democratic or Libertarian off/on again candidacy and win. Let’s get some official precedent settled now.
Also, Nelson’s protestations don’t pass the smell test. I can’t see him making the same arguments if a Democrat or one of his alleged RINO adversaries were the old/new/same candidate on the ballot. He’s waxing volcanic because it’s Lance Russell.
Finally, neither Russell nor Lederman are contending that putting Russell on the ballot is legal. If either thought it were, it would make sense to say so directly. The “it’s not my job” defense seems telling.
Maybe you’re correct that Nelson’s argument is the proper interpretation. If so, let’s get it in a some sort of legal opinion that erases questions if/when this occurs in the future.
Russell is not a new nominee envisioned by SDCL 12-6-56. His name was withdrawn per SDCL 12-6-55. “No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.”
A straight reading of law makes clear that “Lance Russell” may not be printed on the November ballot for District 30 Senate.
I’ll save you, Dicta. Read the above comment. Stace is wrong. He’s a loyal defender of his good friend Lance, and I admire loyalty and even kinda like Stace, but unlike their party, I also love the law and honest language.
Nick Nemec
This needs to be taken to court to have an official ruling on what the law says.
I thought these July 10 comments from “Mark N.” at the Powers blog pretty much nailed it:
Many people here are reading way to much into these statutes. A judge looking at Sen. Russell’s case is going to see a person who was overwhelmingly elected by the primary voters (who knew he was running for AG and supported him anyway), withdrew to run for AG, and then was elected again by the county central committee members in the district (assuming of course that they choose him since that is the only way his case will get to a judge). So removing Russell from the ballot would require the judge to ignore the will of the voters twice (in the primary and in the county party election) and to potentially leave a major party without a nominee on the ballot, which would prevent the voters from expressing their choice. Judges don’t like doing any of that.
What is more likely to happen is that the judge will determine that the last sentence of SDCL 12-6-55 is a ministerial direction to county auditors and the SOS that names that are withdrawn aren’t placed on the ballot, and the judge will determine that a name placed back on the ballot by a county party using 12-6-57 is a new name and not the “name so withdrawn” even if it is the same person.
But a literal reading of the statute without any other context would also then apply to Larry Rhoden. His name was withdrawn from the ballot but will still be “printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.” The statute doesn’t say it only applies to the office from which the individual withdrew. Is Rhoden’s name also disqualified from being on the ballot as Lt. Gov.?
As you know Cory, I’m no fan of Nelson or Russell. But Russell is legally on the ballot. If anybody challenges his new nomination in court they are throwing their money away. Go ahead someone. Throw your money away and challenge it.
mike from iowa
ROR, I’m guessing a severely restricted, red run state with a stranglehold on all aspects could swear the Earth is flat and make it codified law. When the law isn’t clear, the next wingnut pops up with an opinion that favors the party.
Stace Nelson
@Kal Lis You are projecting your own partisan bias. I have a long record of being unafraid to call strikes and balls fairly. When Brian Gosch illegally kicked Lee Schoenbeck out of caucus, despite Lee celebrating the same illegal actions against Senator Russell and myself by David Lust, I protested the violation of Representative Schoenbeck’s rights as a duly elected Republican Representative.
@Mike from Iowa Then according to you & Cory’s interpretation of the statute? then according to you two? Larry Rhoden is also excluded from having his “name” on the ballot as there are no exceptions according to your strict interpretation of the statute that you believe is there to punitively restrict access to the ballot, which is the opposite of the final statute of the chapter which explicitly dictates that the statutes are to be construed LIBERALLY so as to not defeat the will of the voters. The statute doesn’t say person, to defeat your strict interpretation claims that the same name cannot be listed on the ballot? One only needs to use their full name if their middle name was not used previously, or middle initial if it was..
@Nick Nemec We all ready have two official rulings by two seperate members of the Executive branch, the SOS & AG offices. By the strict interpretations herein Democrats wished applied to Senator Russell? The same applied to the Democrat Party would cause their failed convention to be binding with none of their now vacancies allowed to be Mulliganed.
jerry
Yep, Rhoden should be out as well. No exceptions, they knew what the rules were when they rolled the dice. Game over for them both.
mike from iowa
Looks like I have to school Nelson on how government is supposed to work.
The lege writes the laws, but, the courts adjudicate them and the supreme court is the final arbiter of what is legal or not. So far you want to eliminate the courts.
Some of us would prefer to have the laws interpreted by the court(s) to make sure wingnuts aren’t playing fast and loose with the rules. Although, as I mentioned earlier about reds having total control, I can see a wingnut hand picked supreme court kowtowing to the party chairman on rule interpretations. But, it would have the appearance of having due process, which is a phrase that scares the beejeesus out of right wingers.
jerry
Have him think past the South Dakota Duma, although that might be a stretch for him. That one party thingy really appeals to these types.
Dicta
He is arguing correctly, though, and using the words in the SDCL to do so. The idea here is that the law is to be interpreted in a manner that doesn’t disenfranchise the people who voted. I am not opposed to it going to court for a ruling, but I think the outcome should be pretty clear based on the words the SDCL provides here. Noting the words of the statute doesn’t make someone a wingnut, now damn it, stop making me defend Stace freaking Nelson.
All I want is a ruling to establish precedence so that Democrats, Libertarians, and whatever other party springs into existence in the future is afforded the same opportunities Republicans are in this situation.
According to the article, Lederman ” was preparing to send Russell’s certification of nomination to South Dakota Secretary of State Shantel Krebs.” Senator Nelson contends “[w]e all ready have two official rulings by two seperate members of the Executive branch, the SOS & AG offices.” I have some questions
1. Where can one find rulings that apply to a candidate officially withdrawing from a race and then gaining the nomination for the same office a second time?
2. Why didn’t Lederman or Russel cite them?
3. Why hasn’t any Republican here or on DWC or anyplace else cited cited them?
4. Can Krebs issue a ruling if she doesn’t have the nomination certification and no one has challenged it?
I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but in situations like this one, people will usually quote the rulings if they exist.
I don’t care how the decision comes down, but I don’t have faith that rules will be equally applied to other parties without rulings that establish precedence.
Stace Nelson
To all those rabid partisans clamouring for the strict interpretation of the statutes… 12-5-17. Biennial state convention–Time and place–Notice to secretary of state. Each political party shall hold a state convention in each even-numbered year in which they are necessary for the purposes of § 12-5-21. The time and place of holding such convention shall be determined by the State Central Committee of each political party, the chairman of which shall notify the secretary of state at least thirty days previous to the date so chosen. https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-5-17
“..a state convention” is singular and does not allow for a do over.. Or should we view the statutes liberally to ensure the will of the voters are respected?
@Mike from Iowa.. (Rolling eyes) Oh please.. anonymous partisan troll, please explain how government works…
mike from iowa
@Mike from Iowa.. (Rolling eyes) Oh please.. anonymous partisan troll, please explain how government works…
I just did, Goofy. Try to keep up.
Stace Nelson
@Kal Lis Have you written them and asked them? Conflating the first primary nomination with the second district committee special meeting still does not make them one. When Senator Russell resigned, he was no longer a Senate candidate. Receiving the majority vote and official nomination anew by the special committee literally makes him their new nominee. Since the statue does not prohibit the person from being renominated, if the partisan view is correct? Him simply having his full first, middle, & last name on the ballot, vice first and last, makes it a different “name.” Are you equally motivated to demand a legal challenge to the Democratic Party’s do over on their convention? A judge has already blocked the CP, nothing to stop such from happening to the SDDP…
mike from iowa
Nelson, why do you go out of yer way to avoid Kal Lis very appropriate and certainly legal request?
Neither of yer statutes clarify anything that any body could read and be 100% sure what the statutes mean. Unless they are partisans with made up minds who actually presented this scarf as codified law.
Donald Pay
Well, statutory construction would argue against Nelson’s interpretation. The statute as constructed does not preclude any number of conventions or prevent notifying the Secretary of State each time regarding the time and place. The statute requires a party to hold one convention, but does not preclude others. There is no language there preventing more than one convention. Further, the time and place is determined by the State Central Committee of the party, and they can decide whether 1, 2, many conventions are held, as long as the Sec of State is properly noticed. The singular refers only to the fact that at least one convention must be held.
Donald Pay
And statutory construction may allow Russell to be placed on the ballot if he doesn’t use the same name. Otherwise, he’s off.
You are equally mistaken on the second point. Senator Lance Stephan Russell is in fact on the ballot and certified as a candidate on the SOS website for the general election. Interesting enough, Lance S. Russell is noted as having withdrawn in June.. https://vip.sdsos.gov/CandidateList.aspx?eid=291
Rorschach
Now you’re out to lunch, Sen. Nelson. Donald Pay is correct that a party can have as many conventions as it wants as long as they are properly noticed. The temporary writ of prohibition simply tells the SOS not to certify any constitution party candidates until a hearing is held and the court sorts out what is proper. The court has not ruled on anything yet, and when it does – the cse will not turn on the number of conventions. And Mr. Pay, Russell can use whatever name he wants on the ballot. He can use his full name Lancelot, or his nickname Lance if he wants. Doesn’t matter.
You said there were SOS and AG opinions. Just give me a link.
I’ll add one more question, why don’t you want a firm, public ruling to establish precedence so when this situation happens again there’s no question at all?
to answer your question–As someone recently said,”anybody can sue over anything”: if Lederman wants to sue to stop the Democrats from reconvening, he should go for it. Now that you mention it, I’m surprised he didn’t sue to stop the Libertarians from reconvening as well.
As an aside, neither of those situations involved two different groups of people calling another group illegitimate, so the comparison to the Constitution Party is apples to kumquats not apples to apples.
“appear on the ballot” refers to the election for the position in question, not every office up for a vote.
If the law intended to allows exceptions for primary victors to seek other nominations at convention, legislators would have written that exception into statute. That exception is not there. Russell can’t be put back on the District 30 ballot.
Rorschach
He’s there.
Stace Nelson
@Kal Lis I am aware of the conversations. There manifestations are evidence in Lance Steven Russell now being officially on the ballot. I don’t care the political party of any person who may be faced with a similar situation in the future. For me, the statute is clear. Qualified persons should be allowed to run and the voters should be allowed to make their ultimate preference known in the general election. In this immediate case partisan interests clamor for the statute to be enforced in a punitive fashion but then embrace a liberal interpretation of the explicit singular allowance for conventions to nominate candidates. I only cite the statute on conventions to show the hypocrisy.
@Cory It is your interpretation that “appear on the ballot” refers to the election for the position in question, not every office up for a vote. The statute does not contain that sentiments. Under our Constitutions, that which is not expressly forbidden as illegal, is legal. The SOS is correct in her application of the statute.
mike from iowa
Links, Nelson. Links! If you are aware of them, produce a link to them.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in give and take.
Your answer indicates that no formal opinions have been given.
As someone who will never be part of the Republican party establishment or “be aware of conversations”, I am far less sanguine than you that the statute is clear. I am certain that should a Democrat try to do what Lance Russell is doing, Republicans would take legal action to prevent that person’s name from being on the ballot. I am confident that the state judiciary would side with the Republican party on the issue. If there are formal precedents set in this situation when a Republican is running in a heavily Republican district, the possibility that the statute will protect Democrats, Libertarians, and Constitutional Party candidates who may face this situation in the future increases dramatically.
The name appearing on the ballot is expressly forbidden. I’ll surrender my ballot point and go for absolutely strict reading, but you’re trying to hard to thread a needle in favor your desired outcome.
mike from iowa
According to Nelson, I could vote in South Dakota’s election because mike from iowa is not expressly forbidden from voting.
@Kal Lis I do not support efforts to limit third parties or the Democratic Party. I am not afraid of engaging in debate and I don’t need the safe space that so many now a days (in both parties) petulantly mewl for. I disagree. The SOS placing Lance Steven Russell on the ballot is a clear official opinion on where that office stands on the matter. Not being facetious. I am aware that the SOS office gave at least a verbal official opinion on the matter. I am not sure if it was relegated to writing. If I had such, I would provide it as I agree with you in that the decision is not proprietary to an individual but the voting public. You are missing the hate in the establishment GOP for conservatives. Lederman in fact threatened to sue Senator Russell to try and keep him off the ballot as well as several other “Republican” officials. Pat Powers hosted repeated posts encouraging “Republicans” to work with Democrats to get rid of me. You are missing the gyrations of these establishment “Republicans” attempting the gymnastics of defending Senator Ryan Maher’s Cowboy Caucus support of Senator Billie Sutton after he and they issued caucus loyalty pledge edicts trying to throw conservatives out of caucus. They want actual conservatives gone as we provide a stark contrast to their claims of being so to fool the voters.
@CAH Not at all. You continue to argue a point that you have already lost. Lance Steven Russell is on the ballot. The express will of the voters (twice) is for him to be their Republican nominee. Once under the name “Lance S. Russell” and now anew under the name “Lance Steven Russell.” By your own admissions, that defeats your literal interpretation of the statute.
@mike from Iowa According to you chickens should vote, and pigs should fly. See how ignorant such juvenile comments are. You, and those like you, are the reason why other elected officials avoid interacting and donating their personal time. Grow up or go sit in the corner and let the adults engage in conversation.
Rorschach
No matter how much Cory or anyone else wants Russell off the ballot, he’s on it and legally so. We can keep going in circles on it though just for fun. Yes he can/no he can’t. Last “no he can’t” doesn’t win.
mike from iowa
@mike from Iowa According to you chickens should vote, and pigs should fly.
Not true, Nelson. That was yer interpretation of what is not expressly forbidden. The pig flying part was more of yer obfuscation on the main subject.
I believe for an opinion to be official it has to be in writing so there has to be some official record of SOS opinion. Of course dealing with South Dakota wingnuts can be an exercise in futility since no one in official capacity seems to be willing to do the jobs they were elected for, imho.
And, one last thing, yer state’s glaring lack of official oversight of any part of yer government is appalling. The only remedyI see is a change in governance from embarrassingly red to All American BLUE!
Russell is headed for the ballot. His presence on the ballot is illegal. Republicans don’t care what the law says… or they resort to Senator Nelson’s stunning mix of wild literalism and disregard for plain language.
Donald Pay
Could I put “Balls Itch,” a childhood nickname, on the ballot?
Nothing prohibits that, Donald. Our friend Annette Bosworth was able to put her moniker on the ballot, even though that exact moniker did not appear in the voter registration rolls.
The alt-left is working hard behind the scenes to help the fringe wing led by Ms. Hubbel.
I thought the fringe wing was led by Stace Nelson. Someone tell the fringe wing to certify its leader with the Secretary of State so we can all keep track.
Polls don’t matter. The law matters. He made his decision in June. You can’t have it both ways. He’s out in 2018.
I believe Grudz is referring to efforts by one of his friends who has on occasion purchased Grudz a plate of gravy. That person is working to get any and all members of the SDGOP alt-right fringe to run with the hopes of siphoning off votes. Apparently, if Stace Nelson won’t leave the GOP then Lora Hubbel will suffice.
To the point of this post, will Dems do anything to challenge Russell’s candidacy? It would seem like political malpractice if they do not.
Off topic, I hope Grudz buys himself a Blizzard today since it’s Miracle Treat Day.
There is no alt left in South Dakota.
“Foul!” You state the law says “that once a candidate has withdrawn, that candidate’s name may not be placed on the ballot in the race from which he has withdrawn.” It does NOT say that. You misstated and added to what the statute in fact says. The law simply provides the SOS the legal authority to take a name of a ballot after someone withdraws. There is NO prohibition from the person winning the nomination back anew. Anything not explicitly made illegal, is legal. Furthermore, the rest of the chapter has explicit provisions which require the statutes to be construed LIBERALLY to ensure the will of the voters is not defeated by technicalities. The will of the voters? They elected Russell in 20-6 with 72% of the vote in the general election in a record turnout year. In 2018? They selected him as their primary nominee with over 60% of the vote AND again did so ANEW last week.
Lederman and RINO company realized that if they push your narrative? They would be attacking Rhoden as he resigned from a place on the ballot and is now placed back on the ballot anew.
12-6-55. Withdrawal by nominee–Time and place of filing. Any person nominated to any elective office may cause his name to be withdrawn from nomination by request in writing, subscribed and sworn to by him before any officer qualified to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. The request shall be filed with the officer with whom the nominating petition was filed pursuant to § 12-6-4, not later than the first Tuesday in August at 5:00 p.m. before the ensuing election. No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.
Last sentence in codified law says exactly what Cory says it says.
I agree with Sen. Nelson on this, as I have stated in previous threads. The law is a directive to the Secretary of State not to print ballots with the names of withdrawn candidates. It does not prevent any party from nominating a candidate anew who has previously withdrawn. Once Russell was re-nominated his name goes back on the ballot just as anyone else’s name would if they had been nominated.
Stace Nelson writes:
More than 12,600 South Dakota voters supported the Constitution Party candidate for public utilities commissioner in 2014, and my guess is that we’re going to be hearing about the “construed liberally” principle a lot this month.
I have to chuckle now that the term “liberally” (in all caps no less, and which comes from the root “liberal”) has now become the mantra of our tea party aficinados who support Russell. Perhaps this might even open minds a bit and get consevatives to reflect on the propriety of trying to insult and demean certain voters by labeling them “liberals.” Maybe advocating for “liberal” ideals isn’t so terrible after all.
@Mike from Iowa
Cory: “that once a candidate has withdrawn, that candidate’s name may not be placed on the ballot in the race from which he has withdrawn.”
Statute: “No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.”
The statute does not contain the punitive prohibition that willing partisan eyes strive to conjure. It is a simple house cleaning statute that allows the SOS to legally take someone’s name off the ballot, which they cannot do otherwise.
None of us to the best of my knowledge are lawyers. I don’t think any of us play lawyers on TV or in film either.
As we argue about 12-6-55, let’s look at 12-6-56 as published on the South Dakota Secretary of State’s website.
12-6-56. Vacancies in party ticket to be filled by party committee. If a vacancy occurs by reason of death or withdrawal after a primary election, a party candidate for public office may be replaced by a new nominee if a meeting of the appropriate party central committee is held and the results are certified to the appropriate official within the times prescribed by SDCL 12-8-6. If the vacancy is a party candidate for presidential elector or statewide office, the vacancy shall be filled by the State Party Central Committee. If the vacancy is a party candidate for public office other than presidential elector or statewide office, the vacancy shall be filled by a vote of county party central committee members in attendance who reside in the affected district.
I honestly don’t know if Russell is a new nominee because he’s also the old nominee. I also don’t know how liberally one has to construe election law to make “old”, “new”, and “the same person” function as synonyms.
Does anyone know if there’s any precedent? It would seem that Lederman, Russell, and Nelson would be citing it if there were. t’s been a litigious summer. Let’s get the litigiousness out of our system by getting SOS, AG, and court rulings. Maybe then we can start talking about infrastructure, education, and healthcare, you know, those pesky little things called real world issues.
What Kal Lis says is a fact. What Comrade Lederman and Comrade Nelson say are along Duma rules
@jerry I joined the Marines to protect the USA from your Communism. Arguing against the voters to pick whom they want and a candidate’s freedom to run? That’s right up your Communist tree.
Comrade Nelson, I joined to protect the USA from the likes of you and the new Russian love that now exists in South Dakota. I always thought that what is now being represented in our state, was an external threat, I now see that I was wrong. The 40 per centers are a clear and present danger to our Democracy, my, how far you have slipped.
Comrade Jerry… Pffft! Sure you did anonymous “Jerry.” 🙄 You’re so scared of your own shadow you cant even post under your identity. Under Democrats, we had avowed Communists in the last administration and Bernie Sanders is even prouder of his Socialist affinity and honeymoon in Communist USSR. Ignorant narratives from people like you futily attempting to conflate the USSR and modern day Russia not withstanding, you and your ilk are linked at the hip to the Communist movement.
Nelson. I saw nothing in the statute that says it is only a directive for the SOS. It is patently obvious once a name has been withdrawn from the race it cannot later be placed on a ballot, at least for this election.
But I don’t deal in alternative facts and psuedo reality.
My brother and I know every real farmer and real rancher in the state.
Socialism and communism are two different things, use your noodle to google. Kind of patriots and traitors.
Good thing for Nelson and his ilk that Dems were willing to take on the challenges of another failed wingnut, know nothing Potus named dumbass dubya and save America once again. Looks like they will receive the call in 2020 if not sooner for a repeat performance.
Stace is right here. I am really angry at a few of you for making me type that.
Sorry I made you mad Dicta, but I still want an official ruling to set a precedent.
At some point, Democrats or Libertarians may be in the same boat. The fact that Russell was put on the ballot without an opinion doesn’t set a precedent that allows other parties to do the same same thing. In the future, Republicans might be able to challenge a Democratic or Libertarian off/on again candidacy and win. Let’s get some official precedent settled now.
Also, Nelson’s protestations don’t pass the smell test. I can’t see him making the same arguments if a Democrat or one of his alleged RINO adversaries were the old/new/same candidate on the ballot. He’s waxing volcanic because it’s Lance Russell.
Finally, neither Russell nor Lederman are contending that putting Russell on the ballot is legal. If either thought it were, it would make sense to say so directly. The “it’s not my job” defense seems telling.
Maybe you’re correct that Nelson’s argument is the proper interpretation. If so, let’s get it in a some sort of legal opinion that erases questions if/when this occurs in the future.
We’re republicans. We don’t need no stinkin’ rules (or badges).
Russell is not a new nominee envisioned by SDCL 12-6-56. His name was withdrawn per SDCL 12-6-55. “No name so withdrawn shall be printed upon the ballots to be used at such election.”
A straight reading of law makes clear that “Lance Russell” may not be printed on the November ballot for District 30 Senate.
I’ll save you, Dicta. Read the above comment. Stace is wrong. He’s a loyal defender of his good friend Lance, and I admire loyalty and even kinda like Stace, but unlike their party, I also love the law and honest language.
This needs to be taken to court to have an official ruling on what the law says.
I thought these July 10 comments from “Mark N.” at the Powers blog pretty much nailed it:
As you know Cory, I’m no fan of Nelson or Russell. But Russell is legally on the ballot. If anybody challenges his new nomination in court they are throwing their money away. Go ahead someone. Throw your money away and challenge it.
ROR, I’m guessing a severely restricted, red run state with a stranglehold on all aspects could swear the Earth is flat and make it codified law. When the law isn’t clear, the next wingnut pops up with an opinion that favors the party.
@Kal Lis You are projecting your own partisan bias. I have a long record of being unafraid to call strikes and balls fairly. When Brian Gosch illegally kicked Lee Schoenbeck out of caucus, despite Lee celebrating the same illegal actions against Senator Russell and myself by David Lust, I protested the violation of Representative Schoenbeck’s rights as a duly elected Republican Representative.
@Mike from Iowa Then according to you & Cory’s interpretation of the statute? then according to you two? Larry Rhoden is also excluded from having his “name” on the ballot as there are no exceptions according to your strict interpretation of the statute that you believe is there to punitively restrict access to the ballot, which is the opposite of the final statute of the chapter which explicitly dictates that the statutes are to be construed LIBERALLY so as to not defeat the will of the voters. The statute doesn’t say person, to defeat your strict interpretation claims that the same name cannot be listed on the ballot? One only needs to use their full name if their middle name was not used previously, or middle initial if it was..
@Nick Nemec We all ready have two official rulings by two seperate members of the Executive branch, the SOS & AG offices. By the strict interpretations herein Democrats wished applied to Senator Russell? The same applied to the Democrat Party would cause their failed convention to be binding with none of their now vacancies allowed to be Mulliganed.
Yep, Rhoden should be out as well. No exceptions, they knew what the rules were when they rolled the dice. Game over for them both.
Looks like I have to school Nelson on how government is supposed to work.
The lege writes the laws, but, the courts adjudicate them and the supreme court is the final arbiter of what is legal or not. So far you want to eliminate the courts.
Some of us would prefer to have the laws interpreted by the court(s) to make sure wingnuts aren’t playing fast and loose with the rules. Although, as I mentioned earlier about reds having total control, I can see a wingnut hand picked supreme court kowtowing to the party chairman on rule interpretations. But, it would have the appearance of having due process, which is a phrase that scares the beejeesus out of right wingers.
Have him think past the South Dakota Duma, although that might be a stretch for him. That one party thingy really appeals to these types.
He is arguing correctly, though, and using the words in the SDCL to do so. The idea here is that the law is to be interpreted in a manner that doesn’t disenfranchise the people who voted. I am not opposed to it going to court for a ruling, but I think the outcome should be pretty clear based on the words the SDCL provides here. Noting the words of the statute doesn’t make someone a wingnut, now damn it, stop making me defend Stace freaking Nelson.
All I want is a ruling to establish precedence so that Democrats, Libertarians, and whatever other party springs into existence in the future is afforded the same opportunities Republicans are in this situation.
According to the article, Lederman ” was preparing to send Russell’s certification of nomination to South Dakota Secretary of State Shantel Krebs.” Senator Nelson contends “[w]e all ready have two official rulings by two seperate members of the Executive branch, the SOS & AG offices.” I have some questions
1. Where can one find rulings that apply to a candidate officially withdrawing from a race and then gaining the nomination for the same office a second time?
2. Why didn’t Lederman or Russel cite them?
3. Why hasn’t any Republican here or on DWC or anyplace else cited cited them?
4. Can Krebs issue a ruling if she doesn’t have the nomination certification and no one has challenged it?
I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but in situations like this one, people will usually quote the rulings if they exist.
I don’t care how the decision comes down, but I don’t have faith that rules will be equally applied to other parties without rulings that establish precedence.
To all those rabid partisans clamouring for the strict interpretation of the statutes… 12-5-17. Biennial state convention–Time and place–Notice to secretary of state. Each political party shall hold a state convention in each even-numbered year in which they are necessary for the purposes of § 12-5-21. The time and place of holding such convention shall be determined by the State Central Committee of each political party, the chairman of which shall notify the secretary of state at least thirty days previous to the date so chosen. https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-5-17
“..a state convention” is singular and does not allow for a do over.. Or should we view the statutes liberally to ensure the will of the voters are respected?
@Mike from Iowa.. (Rolling eyes) Oh please.. anonymous partisan troll, please explain how government works…
@Mike from Iowa.. (Rolling eyes) Oh please.. anonymous partisan troll, please explain how government works…
I just did, Goofy. Try to keep up.
@Kal Lis Have you written them and asked them? Conflating the first primary nomination with the second district committee special meeting still does not make them one. When Senator Russell resigned, he was no longer a Senate candidate. Receiving the majority vote and official nomination anew by the special committee literally makes him their new nominee. Since the statue does not prohibit the person from being renominated, if the partisan view is correct? Him simply having his full first, middle, & last name on the ballot, vice first and last, makes it a different “name.” Are you equally motivated to demand a legal challenge to the Democratic Party’s do over on their convention? A judge has already blocked the CP, nothing to stop such from happening to the SDDP…
Nelson, why do you go out of yer way to avoid Kal Lis very appropriate and certainly legal request?
Neither of yer statutes clarify anything that any body could read and be 100% sure what the statutes mean. Unless they are partisans with made up minds who actually presented this scarf as codified law.
Well, statutory construction would argue against Nelson’s interpretation. The statute as constructed does not preclude any number of conventions or prevent notifying the Secretary of State each time regarding the time and place. The statute requires a party to hold one convention, but does not preclude others. There is no language there preventing more than one convention. Further, the time and place is determined by the State Central Committee of the party, and they can decide whether 1, 2, many conventions are held, as long as the Sec of State is properly noticed. The singular refers only to the fact that at least one convention must be held.
And statutory construction may allow Russell to be placed on the ballot if he doesn’t use the same name. Otherwise, he’s off.
@Donald Pay A sitting judge has already given a writ of prohibition against the CP for almost the identical situation http://dakotawarcollege.com/sdgop-sues-secretary-of-state-for-writ-of-prohibition-against-recognizing-constitution-party-conventions/ The statute states “a state convention” not state conventions.
You are equally mistaken on the second point. Senator Lance Stephan Russell is in fact on the ballot and certified as a candidate on the SOS website for the general election. Interesting enough, Lance S. Russell is noted as having withdrawn in June.. https://vip.sdsos.gov/CandidateList.aspx?eid=291
Now you’re out to lunch, Sen. Nelson. Donald Pay is correct that a party can have as many conventions as it wants as long as they are properly noticed. The temporary writ of prohibition simply tells the SOS not to certify any constitution party candidates until a hearing is held and the court sorts out what is proper. The court has not ruled on anything yet, and when it does – the cse will not turn on the number of conventions. And Mr. Pay, Russell can use whatever name he wants on the ballot. He can use his full name Lancelot, or his nickname Lance if he wants. Doesn’t matter.
Sen Nelson,
You said there were SOS and AG opinions. Just give me a link.
I’ll add one more question, why don’t you want a firm, public ruling to establish precedence so when this situation happens again there’s no question at all?
to answer your question–As someone recently said,”anybody can sue over anything”: if Lederman wants to sue to stop the Democrats from reconvening, he should go for it. Now that you mention it, I’m surprised he didn’t sue to stop the Libertarians from reconvening as well.
As an aside, neither of those situations involved two different groups of people calling another group illegitimate, so the comparison to the Constitution Party is apples to kumquats not apples to apples.
More horsehockey.
“appear on the ballot” refers to the election for the position in question, not every office up for a vote.
If the law intended to allows exceptions for primary victors to seek other nominations at convention, legislators would have written that exception into statute. That exception is not there. Russell can’t be put back on the District 30 ballot.
He’s there.
@Kal Lis I am aware of the conversations. There manifestations are evidence in Lance Steven Russell now being officially on the ballot. I don’t care the political party of any person who may be faced with a similar situation in the future. For me, the statute is clear. Qualified persons should be allowed to run and the voters should be allowed to make their ultimate preference known in the general election. In this immediate case partisan interests clamor for the statute to be enforced in a punitive fashion but then embrace a liberal interpretation of the explicit singular allowance for conventions to nominate candidates. I only cite the statute on conventions to show the hypocrisy.
@Cory It is your interpretation that “appear on the ballot” refers to the election for the position in question, not every office up for a vote. The statute does not contain that sentiments. Under our Constitutions, that which is not expressly forbidden as illegal, is legal. The SOS is correct in her application of the statute.
Links, Nelson. Links! If you are aware of them, produce a link to them.
Sen. Nelson,
I appreciate your willingness to engage in give and take.
Your answer indicates that no formal opinions have been given.
As someone who will never be part of the Republican party establishment or “be aware of conversations”, I am far less sanguine than you that the statute is clear. I am certain that should a Democrat try to do what Lance Russell is doing, Republicans would take legal action to prevent that person’s name from being on the ballot. I am confident that the state judiciary would side with the Republican party on the issue. If there are formal precedents set in this situation when a Republican is running in a heavily Republican district, the possibility that the statute will protect Democrats, Libertarians, and Constitutional Party candidates who may face this situation in the future increases dramatically.
The name appearing on the ballot is expressly forbidden. I’ll surrender my ballot point and go for absolutely strict reading, but you’re trying to hard to thread a needle in favor your desired outcome.
According to Nelson, I could vote in South Dakota’s election because mike from iowa is not expressly forbidden from voting.
@Kal Lis I do not support efforts to limit third parties or the Democratic Party. I am not afraid of engaging in debate and I don’t need the safe space that so many now a days (in both parties) petulantly mewl for. I disagree. The SOS placing Lance Steven Russell on the ballot is a clear official opinion on where that office stands on the matter. Not being facetious. I am aware that the SOS office gave at least a verbal official opinion on the matter. I am not sure if it was relegated to writing. If I had such, I would provide it as I agree with you in that the decision is not proprietary to an individual but the voting public. You are missing the hate in the establishment GOP for conservatives. Lederman in fact threatened to sue Senator Russell to try and keep him off the ballot as well as several other “Republican” officials. Pat Powers hosted repeated posts encouraging “Republicans” to work with Democrats to get rid of me. You are missing the gyrations of these establishment “Republicans” attempting the gymnastics of defending Senator Ryan Maher’s Cowboy Caucus support of Senator Billie Sutton after he and they issued caucus loyalty pledge edicts trying to throw conservatives out of caucus. They want actual conservatives gone as we provide a stark contrast to their claims of being so to fool the voters.
@CAH Not at all. You continue to argue a point that you have already lost. Lance Steven Russell is on the ballot. The express will of the voters (twice) is for him to be their Republican nominee. Once under the name “Lance S. Russell” and now anew under the name “Lance Steven Russell.” By your own admissions, that defeats your literal interpretation of the statute.
@mike from Iowa According to you chickens should vote, and pigs should fly. See how ignorant such juvenile comments are. You, and those like you, are the reason why other elected officials avoid interacting and donating their personal time. Grow up or go sit in the corner and let the adults engage in conversation.
No matter how much Cory or anyone else wants Russell off the ballot, he’s on it and legally so. We can keep going in circles on it though just for fun. Yes he can/no he can’t. Last “no he can’t” doesn’t win.
@mike from Iowa According to you chickens should vote, and pigs should fly.
Not true, Nelson. That was yer interpretation of what is not expressly forbidden. The pig flying part was more of yer obfuscation on the main subject.
I believe for an opinion to be official it has to be in writing so there has to be some official record of SOS opinion. Of course dealing with South Dakota wingnuts can be an exercise in futility since no one in official capacity seems to be willing to do the jobs they were elected for, imho.
And, one last thing, yer state’s glaring lack of official oversight of any part of yer government is appalling. The only remedyI see is a change in governance from embarrassingly red to All American BLUE!
Russell is headed for the ballot. His presence on the ballot is illegal. Republicans don’t care what the law says… or they resort to Senator Nelson’s stunning mix of wild literalism and disregard for plain language.
Could I put “Balls Itch,” a childhood nickname, on the ballot?
Nothing prohibits that, Donald. Our friend Annette Bosworth was able to put her moniker on the ballot, even though that exact moniker did not appear in the voter registration rolls.