This week Governor Kristi Noem signed two bills to keep ambitious candidates like Lance Russell out of trouble… and endorsed two colliding election laws.
Recall that last summer, we had all sorts of fun watching Lance Russell have to withdraw his name from the District 30 Senate ballot so he could legally seek the Republican nomination for Attorney General, then, after losing that nomination to stumblebum Jason Ravnsborg, having to trick a judge into ignoring the law to let him go back onto the Senate ballot.
Naturally, if we’re having fun (and the fun doesn’t involve alcohol), the Legislature is going to take that fun away. Senator Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton) brought two bills, Senate Bill 75 and Senate Bill 76, to revise the statutes that tangled Russell (and, briefly, Larry Rhoden). SB 76 changes election law to apply the no-dual-candidacy rule strictly to primary and general election ballots and not, by omission, to party nominating conventions. SB 76’s new language says a standing candidate who wins a nomination to a different office at convention must withdraw from the running for one of those offices “on or before the date on which the secretary of state receives the state party certification” of the nomination. SB 75 changes election law to moot (as Judge Devaney did last summer) the prohibition on putting a withdrawn candidate back on the ballot. SB 75 lets party officials fill a candidate vacancy with whomever they want, including the previously withdrawn candidate.
Nothing can fix the shame and humiliation of losing to Jason Ravnsborg, but Senate Bill 76 alone would have been enough to fix Russell’s 2018 nomination quandary. If the law hadn’t required his withdrawal before the convention vote, Russell wouldn’t have withdrawn, and his District 30 friends wouldn’t have had a general election ballot vacancy to fill. Senate Bill 75 thus appears to be unnecessary legislation, inviting wishy-washy candidates who throw in, back out, then come asking for their shot again.
Complicating matters is the fact that the Legislature also passed Senate Bill 77, Senator Al Novstrup’s (R-3/Aberdeen) proposal to let candidates run for multiple offices. I’m not sure which was sillier: Al’s original text pinning the threshold for multiple candidacies on the offices’ salaries, or the Senate State Affairs amendment specifying that the privilege of running for multiple offices to folks running for water development district and consumer power district as well as to the currently exempted offices of President and Vice-President. If dual candidacy is o.k. for the highest two offices in the land, and if dual candidacies are o.k. for two of the padinkliest* offices in the land, Senate Bill 77 invites us to wonder why we are prohibiting any dual candidacies.
But our wonderless legislators didn’t stop to ask that interesting question… nor did they ask whether SB 77 can even take effect alongside SB 76. While Novstrup’s SB 77 only amends the existing dual-candidacy prohibition in SDCL 12-6-3, Bolin’s SB 76 writes the original strict prohibition of dual candidacies for anything other than Prez and Veep into a whole new separate section of Chapter 12-6. By signing both bills (SB 77 Monday, SB 76 Tuesday), Governor Noem ensured that on July 1, two contradictory statutes will take effect. Candidate Jane Doe reading SDCL 12-6-3 will think, “Hey, great! I can run for Legislature and for water development district!” while her opponent reading SDCL 12-6-3.3 (point 1 and point 2 are already taken) will think, “Aha! She can’t run for both offices! Break out the Twitter: Doe breaks law, can’t make law #LockHerUp!”
So maybe these Russell-fixers will still let us have some fun after all. Let’s see how the Legislative Research Council resolves these incompatible bills!
*superlative of padinkle, pronounced with extra half-syllable schwa between the k and l, meaning minor and mostly ignored.
Does not seem like a big deal… However, what about the two women who ended up in our state legislature who did not even live in the state (when they ran and were voted in)? Seems like no wanted to deal with those law breakers. So anyone who lives out of state can come in and get a fake address, and run in our elections… The Russel issue, not a big deal, he actually lives, serves, and is a part of our state. Glad to have him in the legislature!
Oh Liz, your racism is a breath of air downwind from a CAFO.
Liz, you and grudznick should be married. Both of you seem to be the sort no one else would have around.
Sorry, Liz: you lost that fight before Session started. According to the Republican Legislature itself, Senator Foster and Representative Pourier broke no law. The Republican Legislature reviewed the documents presented by Foster’s and Pourier’s opponents, stated there was no evidence of any infraction, and refused to take any formal action against the rightful winners of the District 27 election. One bill arose addressing voter residency, HB 1129, and it died in its first committee hearing. The Legislature thus saw none of the lawbreaking that you allege.
Senator Russell ran afoul of two clear laws. He withdrew at the last minute before convention to avoid breaking one; he and his local party broke the other and got a lucky and flawed court ruling. The Legislature saw that breakage clearly enough that it acted, with the bills explained above, to undo both of those problematic laws.
So you’re not just arguing with me, Liz. You’re arguing with the conclusions of the Republican Legislature, which agree with my conclusion: Foster and Pourier did nothing requiring Legislative correction; Russell did.
And I say that not minding that much that Russell is in the Legislature. He makes for a useful opposition party to some of the corporate Republican mainstream’s foolishness.
Cannabis Kristy will cure all what ails us !!!!
Jerry, your comment tickles me. Funny!
Is “Liz”, Liz May?
Liz is Lizzie Borden, reincarnated. Gave herself 40 whacks and it still didn’t help.
Jerry, if I recall correctly, Elizabeth May, whom Peri Pourier beat in a fair and square House race, stayed prudently quiet during the fuss that Rapid City white boys Jordan Mason and Shad Olson kicked up.
Cory, I believe you’re correct. I did not imply or at least, I did not think I was implying that “Liz” is Elizabeth May.
Whoops! Sorry, Jerry—I meant to direct my response to Roger.
russell shows just how shallow our sd. government is . thank god for the arrival of the 2 young ladies from district of ms.may.they show to me the seeds of progress in the garden of sd.weeds.
Ah! A wise Pierre observer explains that Code Counsel Doug Decker will have the task of revising the statutes for the Code Commission’s approval. When statutes conflict, the more recent statute controls. 77 was signed on Monday; 76 was signed on Tuesday; thus, if a conflict exists, 76 controls. I’d contend that 76, by creating a whole separate section of code forbidding dual candidacies, would overrule 77’s insertion about water and power district candidates. However, Code Counsel Decker evidently has broad authority to propose revisions that preserve as much of the signed bills’ intent as possible.
To this day then, no one in state government has ever admitted that Russell, the man who wanted to be the Attorney General, willingly disregarded the law he was supposed to uphold. Instead, after the fact of being outed, the law now is changed so that in the future, he and the rest of the outlaws don’t have to worry. Nice…
Marvin, those two noble ladies from District 27 have a high hill to climb. But they got to office more legally than Russell did, and they do appear to have the stuff to inspire other young people to join them in our fight for liberty and justice for all.