The Rapid City School Board has an interesting petition case in federal court. School board candidate Lafawn Janis submitted a petition with sufficient signatures to make the local school board ballot. A supporter of her opponent, Brian Johnson, challenged her petition, saying she’d left blank a line saying she is running in “Area 3.” Assistant Superintendent David Janak checked with the Secretary of State and decided to reject Janis’s petition. The next day Janis challenged Johnson’s petition on the same grounds, but Janak said Johnson’s petition is fine.
Janis is thus suing Janak and the county auditor in federal court to get her name on the ballot. The parties tried to settle with the school board, but the Rapid City board voted last night to let Judge Karen Schreier sort it out.
Now I don’t have the petitions before me, but Janis says in her affidavit that she found the same omission on Johnson’s petition as on hers. her petition apparently did contain her “Area 3” location in the declaration of candidacy right below the contested blank, thus providing voters with exactly the information required by law. Janis’s complaint (written by attorney Jim Leach, who is handling another really interesting case right now) alleges that Janak checked with the Secretary of State on her petition but not Johnson’s. Janis also says that the error on her form and Johnson’s resulted from Janak’s giving them the wrong form:
The alleged defect on which Janak purported to disqualify Janis was the result of the petition that Janak himself gave Janis, which did not conform to ARSD 5:02:08:11, which provides that “The nominating petition for school board member must be in the following form,” then sets forth the form.
Janis’s opponent’s nominating petition was not in the form required by ARSD 5:02:08:11 either [Jim Leach, Amended Complaint, Janis v Janak, #5:19-cv-05032-KES, 2019.04.11].
If Judge Schreier consults state law, she’ll find precedent from 2012. Then-Secretary of State Jason Gant kicked my friend Charlie Johnson off the District 8 Senate ballot for not having the right jurisdiction written in the blank on his nominating petition. Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett overruled Gant, saying that the form Johnson used, which he got, incorrectly filled in by his own county auditor, still substantially complied with state law.
Note that the petition rejection in Rapid City has nothing to do with fake signatures or fraud or missing information. Both candidates appear to have provided all necessary information to qualify for the ballot. South Dakota has multiple laws requiring that petitions be liberally construed so as not to thwart the real intention of the voters. Liberal construal directs that the judge junk Janak’s rejection and Janis and Johnson joust for majority in June.
Speaking of the other “interesting case” being handled by Leach, the RC Journal editorial board today endorsed your lawsuit Cory!
This is nuts. They are costing students money by taking this to court when they could have solved it. It was the district’s mistake, not hers, if they provided an improper petition. When students make a mistake they are expected to admit it and make it right. So should the school board. She should be on the ballot.
Using technicalities to win is out of spirit with what we should teach the next generation and reflects poorly on the nitpicker, Johnson if he supported it, and the school system who appears to have used it for their own advantage. Just the sort of ethical questions we should be challenging one another. Want a big gym? Gather votes during game time.
Ah, common ground. Bear, as your next Governor, I promise to bring all South Dakotans together for serious conversations about our Constitutional rights and how to actualize them for all citizens.
And hot dogs. I’ll bring everyone together for hot dogs.
Donald, Hap, while you know I’m a stickler when it comes to petitions and oaths and rules, it appears that the petitions in question offered no false information and withheld no necessary information. The real problem, Janis alleges, is that the petitions were treated differently. Part of proper sticklerdom is applying the same sticklerism to every situation.
The real problem, Republicans know is they can win forcing expensive litigation to solve every little hurdle they can throw up. Pun inten…. Litigiousness? as a strategy. Notice how Trump, the gamer, has taxpayers paying to litigate his every distraction. It really does force us to bring in heavy out of state money to survive. This can not end well. We must relieve him of office and Republicans of their corrupt hearts.ugh
Say, Donald, I’ve been thinking about petition law here. I’m not sure Janak has authority to act on the challenge that was filed. The statutes on school board elections, Chapter 13-7 don’t lay out any challenge process, so I am assuming that the general provisions on elections, Chapter 12-1, govern. SDCL 12-1-13 says “any interested person who has researched the signatures contained on the petition may submit an affidavit stating that the petition contains deficiencies as to the number of signatures of persons who are eligible to sign the petition.” Such challenge goes to the person in charge of the election, in this case, the business manager. That statute (narrowed recently by the Legislature following the Bosworth petition fiasco) does not appear to allow challenges based on other deficiencies like the ones under consideration on Janis’s and Johnson’s petitions. If we thus adopt the “hands are tied/ministerial function only” interpretation of the election chief’s role in validating petitions, the business manager has no authority to consider a challenge to anything outside the voter signature boxes.
The election statutes also don’t mention a role for the school board in the process. I don’t have any apt analogy to petitions challenged in the Secretary of State’s office (the Secretary doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the Legislature or some higher board the way the school business manager does), but §12-1-13 says that after the election manager rules on a challenge, the challenger has to take any further complaint to circuit court. So does the school board have any authority to step in and overrule the business manager’s call on a petition?
Yeah, I’m not sure how the statute changes affected the local election process. The year I ran for school board, another gentleman who had petitioned turned out to reside a block or two outside Area 5. No one filed any challenge. I certainly didn’t. The business manager (Dan Dryden) on his own authority found the problem and either invalidated the petition or had the gentleman withdraw it.
The RCAS board sets policy for school board elections, but the policy states they should be held “according to state law.” If the district failed to provide the correct petition to a candidate, I can’t believe the district is following state law. It is definitely NOT the candidates fault.
There is general policy, which provides: “In the absence of board policy relating to a specific situation, the best judgment of the superintendent will be used in arriving at a decision. The decision will be made based on the spirit and tenor of other existing and related policies.” It seems to me the Superintendent would have the authority to overrule the business manager.
So, I would read it as the Superintendent has authority, in the absence of policy, to