Republican candidate for District 1 House Logan Manhart is likes to lie about the 2020 election. He is also apparently willing to lie about his qualifications to run for elected office in South Dakota.
Article 3 Section 3 of the South Dakota Constitution requires that individuals wishing to serve as legislators must, among other criteria, have “been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election.” That means that every person running for House or Senate this year must have lived in South Dakota since November 8, 2020.
Logan Manhart moved to Wisconsin in 2019 “to further his education.” In 2020, Manhart campaigned in Wisconsin for Trump. In 2021, Manhart completed a certificate in leadership development and management at Chippewa Valley Technical College in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. (Note: the leadership development certificate requires six credits; the supervisory management certificate requires nine credits. So when Manhart says he graduated with a “certificate degree,” he may be overstating his credentials.) GOPVictory.com lists Manhart as the organizer of a Republican mobilization/strategy/get-out-the-vote meeting at the Eau Claire County GOP office in Eau Claire on September 4, 2021:
Manhart was campaigning in person in Eau Claire at VFW Post 305 in September 2021:
Manhart tweeted several other pics of his political organizing and having beer with Republicans in Wisconsin through November 2021.
Among whatever tasks Manhart busied himself with between politicking and packing in Eau Claire, he appears not to have included canceling his Wisconsin voter registration. Manhart still comes up as an active voter in Wisconsin’s online voter database:
My Vote Wisconsin reports that Logan Manhart voted in four Wisconsin elections, including, most recently, the spring election on April 6, 2021:
This online report is not an error: in an email to Dakota Free Press this morning, Eau Claire City Clerk Carrie Riepl confirms that Logan Manhart voted in the four Wisconsin elections listed in the screencap above: February 18, 2020; August 11, 2020; November 3, 2020; and April 6, 2021.
April 6, 2021, was nineteen months, less than two years, before the 2022 general election.
Partisan candidates in South Dakota swear on their nominating petitions that they are eligible to seek the offices for which they are candidates. When Manhart swore that he was eligible to seek a seat in the South Dakota House, he swore that he had been a resident of South Dakota since November 8, 2020. South Dakota’s definition of residency is notoriously fuzzy, but Manhart had to be a resident of Wisconsin to maintain and exercise his right to vote in Wisconsin on April 6, 2021, 1.6 years before the 2022 general election. Manhart thus will not have fully legally resided in South Dakota for two years by the time of the November 2022 general election and is not eligible to serve in the South Dakota House.
Of course, Manhart’s fellow Republicans are free to ignore such facts and the constitutional residency requirement itself. They did so in 1977, when they seated Rodney Gutzler as District 9 Representative despite the fact that Gutzler had lived in Minnesota until 1975, and the South Dakota Supreme Court said they could, citing the House’s authority to determine its members’ qualifications under Article 3 Section 9 as supreme and judicially uncheckable once the voters have spoken. The 1977 court left open the option of challenging Manhart’s qualifications as a candidate before the voters have spoken. Manhart’s opponents in the District 1 House contest—Democratic Representative Jennifer Healy Keintz of Eden, former Democratic legislator Steven McCleerey, and Republican Representative Tamara St. John—may thus have standing to go to court before the election and argue that Manhart’s nominating petition is invalidated by his false statement that he is legally eligible for the office.
Now it is possible that Manhart did move back to South Dakota a day or two after voting for Trump on November 3, 2020, to reëstablish his permanent residence in Bath for the purpose of running for District 1 House in 2022 and just kept traveling to Wisconsin to hang out with his Republican pals. But then he would have illegally cast his vote in Wisconsin in April 2021.
Either way, Manhart lied to somebody… which is what we’d expect from someone who keeps insisting, against all evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen.
Excellent work! The SD Secretary of State must address this.
Is it my imagination but it seems that virtually all fraudulent activities exposed nationwide have been Republicans
You know he moved th Bath to take one. Now he’s clean as a whistle.
OTD – not your imagination. Much of what the “right” finds wrong in this country is fantastical projection.
Election Integrity?? Is that what the Republicans are so deeply concerned about?? I doubt it.
Come back to us, Barbara Lewis
Hare Krishna, Beauregard
Tom, I’d love for the Secretary of State to look into this, but does the SOS have the authority to look at information like this and decertify a candidate? Or must someone with standing, like an opposing candidate, take the matter to court to compel the SOS to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot?
Would the Secretary of State have standing because Manhart perjured himself on the petition statement to the Office of Secretary of State? Multiple avenues must be pursued simultaneously, the candidates must start legal action, the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party, if they care about election integrity) must start legal action, and all players must demand the Secretary of State take administrative action.
When is the deadline for a political party to replace a candidate? I would think a political party wouldn’t have standing to replace a candidate pre-primary because they are not yet the nominee. If they could then the entire process of requiring candidates to gather signatures and file nominating petitions would be a meaningless facade.
I don’t like this guy’s politics at all, but as with others who move temporarily to take a job or go to school or participate in family care-giving for an out-of-state relative, I think Article III, Section 3 is outdated and obsolete. I think it was included in the Constitution because there were a lot of folks moving to South Dakota from elsewhere in that time period. I think it made sense to apply it to new residents who may not have known about the state’s culture, law and traditions. Back then two years made some sense because legislative sessions occurred every two years. So new residents would have to go through a legislative session before becoming eligible to run for a legislative seat. Now, however, legislative sessions occur every year. To me it makes sense to decrease the residency requirement from two years to one year. However, if you had been a previous resident, but got called away for a job for a time, and you move back to South Dakota, why should that requirement apply? I can’t think of a good reason. I’m not sure how to address that in the Constitution, other than to say that a previous resident of South Dakota who moves back is qualified to run.
A Secretary of State who was serious about election integrity would take action.
Donald, Article 3 Section 3 may indeed be a throwback to the old days, but the two-year requirement is there, and we have to follow it. A candidate swears under oath that he meets all eligibility requirements; Manhart thus lied under oath.
People do move around a lot for work and jobs and family care, but even amidst that moving, one can maintain voting residency in South Dakota, as I did through seven out-of-state moves over 30 years.
If we’d like to change that rule and allow the voters to elect the newest residents, we have a process for amending the state constitution.
Cory, I agree. He lied under oath. That, to me, is a problem. Maybe he didn’t know the residency requirement, but he should have if he was swearing to it. His swearing of the oath was clearly false. I suppose you could say he had a very liberal interpretation of the SD Constitution, but I’m not sure that would carry the day in a court suit. I could care less that he voted in Wisconsin for a couple years while he was here going to school, but if you’re going by a strict constructionist or originalist or even a commonsense definition of “resident,” you best wait your turn, and argue for a change in the Constitution.
My kid has been a resident of China for 17 years, but maintains a voting residency in South Dakota, so it’s not that hard to do. I’ve tried to get her to switch to Wisconsin, where her vote might count for something in the electoral college. Ex-pats can choose their voting residency at will. So far, she’s sticking with South Dakota. She votes mainly for the Presidency, Senate and House, leaving most of the other races blank. Sometimes she’ll vote on the ballot issues. Still, I’d like to think if she came back to South Dakota she could run for the Legislature without having to wait.
Donald, tell your daughter that if she comes back to South Dakota to run for Legislature, I will rent a mailbox and pitch a tent for a night in her district so I can vote for her. I’m glad she’s kept her wise vote in our ballpark!
Lying under oath is bad, very bad. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for those who seek the privilege of making our laws. If you don’t know or respect the law, you don’t get to make the law.
If the lying cheating carpetbagger from WI is allowed to run and wins he will blend in well with the inept inbred Republicans in the Dumb Dome in Pierre. Heck, he might even get invited to a dip in the sauna at the 1 house gated community housing part time governor full time campaigner kitty cat Noem.
The Constitution, both State and Federal along with laws enacted are like the song, “need not apply” and “others wonder why”.
Doesn’t SD have enough political nut cases running all over nice places showing their goofy faces? Does the state really need another white privilege domestic terrorists immigrant jumping boundaries to nest in the glory of the state? Darn, if asked, 45 would come to vote him in or that crazy candidate from NE Noem wants to vote for (she probably thinks flying over NE on her way to TX makes her a resident haha).
In time the inept inbreds running the state will implode allowing sensibly back in Pierre. But in the meant time don’t let them drive, hid dirty money or misuse interest rates, and keep them off the crazy weed unless their mental conditions call for its use.
n legislators remind you of stripes on a zebra? They all look and act alike, confusing those who would attack them as the kaleidoscope of black and white goes flashing by!
This fellow, the Mr. Manhart one, must be smited.
But let us not pretend that Mr. Pay’s daughter in China is voting on measures initiated and other such drivel that should not be on the ballots at all.
Grudznick–your attitude toward initiative and referral reveals your underlying bias that all state laws should be crafted and guided through the legislature by lobbyists. While that’s a great way for legislators to cadge free drinks and other perks, it doesn’t do much for good government.
Yet, Mr. Blundt, it does “craft” the best law bills.
Side note: grudznick finds it humorous when fellow like you or especially those in the legislatures, use the word “craft” as a verb for passing law bills. There is no “crafting”. It is not like an art blob that a painter uses, it is not like a “craft” beer maker, it is not even like a child “crafting” a sculpture with popsicle sticks and glue. Although it’s more like the latter, and then the parents all sit around and applaud the poop sculpture the toddler has made.
“crafting” is a verb that when used by any person when talking about the legislatures, needs to be a huge red flag for all of you all.
There is no “crafting.” It is about domination and winning. Mark down grudznick’s words well here, and burn them into your brain. Even Mr. H needs to learn this lesson from grudznick.
Craft is what witches do all the time.
Mr. Blundt, you have no idea you are the Higgs boson of democracy. You supply the matter to the idea. Bunch of much needed badazzes for the party to fight the power.
Grudz–you’re getting incoherent..It does craft the best bills…do you mean lobbyists write the best bills??
I do agree with your analogies of the absurdity of applying the verb craft to anything the legislature does. I apologize for my verb selection.
“It is about domination and winning”..Yes, the Power Game. When applied in Pierre, this game and its products are thoughtless, careless, and stunning in their evil.
In my unworthy take, the imagery conjured up by the verb ‘craft’ was suiting. It made me picture the legislature as spindly fingered guys ‘crafting’ spells in clandestine seances. With chanting. Basically to erase belief in utopian Americanisms like All the power to all the people, with liberty and justice for all.
Craft = definition from Oxford languages “skill used in deceiving others. Quite appropriate for gruz and the legislature.
If only you could see grudznick now, wiggling my fingers in a “booga booga” fashion to manipulate the thoughts of others. Today, at the Conservatives with Common Sense Breakfast, we will debate who weaves together the best law bills: the lobbists, the sloppy measures initiated by out-of-state dark-money special-interest groups, or the legislatures.
The state Democrat Party should file against Manhart, and keep their eyes open to a slick move that Manhart’s candidacy can be replaced by another Republican. The prize is eliminating Noem toady Tammy St. John from the legislature. District 1 had been a Democrat powerhouse when Democrats fielded candidates who worked hard to get elected. The at-large ballot position without a second Republican to lock in GOP votes instead of voting for one of the Democrats will make it mathematically very, very hard for the toady to win in November.
Considering the embarrassing failure to recruit candidates this year, the Democrats have a great shot at picking up a House seat — if they don’t slack off and fail to go to court and close the loop on this House seat. Any competent lawyers available?
96, if Manhart is booted from the ballot before August 9, do the county GOP committees get to name a replacement?
Good question, Cory. If Manhart never filed for the District 1 seat, it would be vacant and St. John would be praying all Republicans bullet vote. No ifs, ands or buts. Same with a falsified petition of candidacy. The slot reverts to being vacant as if nobody had filed.
If my information is wrong, then all unchallenged seats can be filled by the affected district political committees. Pretty dang sure the law doesn’t allow that. I just hope there’s one competent attorney in the South Dakota Democratic Party who’ll file a court action and pick up a free seat … and eliminate St. John’s pathway to another term. Two seats, voila!
Good point, 96. A candidate booted because of an invalid petition is not the same as a candidate who files a valid petition but then withdraws.
And SDCL 12-6-56 backs that reasoning up. The law says county parties may fill vacancies on the ballot that occur if a nominee dies or withdraws after the primary. The statute does not provide for vacancies that arise because a candidate is removed by court order for falsifying a declaration of candidacy.
If Manhart were smart (and these little Charlie-Kirk clones like to think they are smart), he would pull a quasi-Dan Sutton: withdraw his candidacy before any court can take action against him, thus allowing his party leaders to replace him with a qualified candidate. That would give the party time to convince Drew Dennert to declare his farm outside Aberdeen as his address and run in District 1.