As expected, Republicans are playing out their gambit to salvage the District 1 House candidacy that illegal immigrant Logan Manhart almost forfeited for them. Bluestem Prairie noted Thursday that District 1 Republicans have picked failed District 1 Senate candidate Joe Donnell to replace withdrawn candidate Manhart and join Donnell’s cousin Rep. Tamara St. John on the November ballot for District 1 House.
Manhart withdrew from the race in June because he didn’t meet the two-year residency requirement for candidates for Legislature. Democratic District 1 House candidate and former legislator Steven McCleerey had a lawsuit in progress to establish Manhart’s ineligibility in court, but the SDGOP sent star Republican lawyer Sara Frankenstein to delay any court hearing until after the June primary. Had Manhart been booted from the ballot before the primary, state law would not have allowed Republicans to name a replacement. But since the court did not take up the matter before the primary, Manhart was able to issue his formal withdrawal the morning after the primary, thus allowing District 1 Republicans to slide someone into his illegally held ballot slot.
Donnell’s candidacy is as illegitimate as Manhart’s. Suppose Manhart had read the law back in March, realized his voting in Wisconsin in April 2021 nullified his South Dakota residency and rendered him ineligible to stand for office in 2022, and torn up his nominating petition, leaving that one District 1 House ballot spot blank. If no other Republican had filed a nominating petition by the March 29 deadline, that ballot slot would have remained empty. Republicans could not have gathered this summer to name a “replacement” for that empty spot.
Better yet, suppose that I had petitioned to place my dog Ezra on the ballot.
Ezra is a heck of a good dog, and he’d be a better legislator than either Manhart or Donnell, but he doesn’t meet the residency or age requirements (Article 3 Section 3 includes no formula for converting dog years.) And I’d never intend to actually have Ezra on the November ballot; I’d just submit his petition with his pawprint as a placeholder to give my party time to recruit a replacement candidate by August. I’d withdraw Ezra’s name on June 8; my party leaders would meet, find a willing two-legged candidate, and name that replacement before the August 9 deadline.
But the replacement would be as illegal as if nobody had filed for the spot in March. My dog can’t legally appear on the ballot; my dog thus can’t legally hold a place on the ballot for a later replacement. There is no legitimate candidate to replace.
But legitimacy is decided by due process. If no one sued to declare my dog’s candidacy illegitimate, and if no judge got around to affirming that declaration, my party’s replacement of my withdrawn dog’s candidacy would remain valid, and that replacement would remain on the November ballot.
In District 1, Manhart is the dog. District 1 Republicans held a place on the ballot with an illegal candidate.
But since the court hasn’t judged Manhart’s candidacy illegitimate, District 1 Republicans are free to carry on their charade and put a new cool cat in their old dog’s place.
The only way to remove Donnell from the ballot is to retool McCleerey’s lawsuit, establish the illegitimacy of Manhart’s candidacy in court, and thus moot the replacement.
Run, Ezra, run!
South Dakota would indeed be better served if there were a majority of dogs in the Senate and House. The plumbing in the State Capitol would get a break during session. There are plenty of trees and lawn around the Capitol where the geese routinely leave behind their chalupas. Doggy chalupas are easier to spot. You could replace the state legislature doctor of the day with a state veterinarian of the day — think of the savings! The Sergeants-of-Arms would need only a leash to control the members if they get out of hand. No need to find dog whistles since that’s all the Republicans have for a legislative agenda. And the blue suits would benefit because they won’t need their credit cards for booze and free dinners for human legislators. Just make sure they’ve got some Milk Bones in their pockets during committee hearings.
If you want loyalty in politics, get a dog. Great post, Cory!
“But legitimacy is decided by due process,” Cory writes. Is it? Does finding a legal wormhole to crawl through, and hoping no one sues, make you any less of a worm? With moral people, it doesn’t take a court case to decide legitimacy. A moral person and a ethical party would recognize the mistake, admit it and move on. They wouldn’t engage in the slimy legal maneuvers pulled off in this instance. Fake vacations to justify legal delays in hopeless legal cases sound like people with the moral stature of Donald Trump, which is to say, the moral stature of a worm. So, yeah, even if they won the court case, they’d still have no legitimacy.
It sounds like they are making new laws because people don’t stand up to them. Can the Secretary of State rule on the facts? Election Commission? Can the Republican party lose their status as a political party? Non-profit status? I find it disgusting they don’t feel the rules apply to them and will not stop until someone puts the situation in front of a judge. 2 systems of Justice – ‘Just Us’ and ‘the Rest of them’ not based on the law just who has the most money.
Much of the GOP has adopted the political practice of subverting the election system. Their frequent accusations of fraud is a reflection of their own obsession with gaming the system. When a major party becomes devoted to manipulation rather than a straightforward confrontation of the issues, we have already lost the republic.
Donald, perhaps “legality” would technically better describe the situation. You and I know that Manhart was not a legitimate candidate and that now Donnell is not a legitimate candidate. But Manhart wouldn’t have been removed from the ballot and Donnell won’t be removed from the ballot until a court affirms the fact of their illegitimacy.
Francis, I don’t think there are any provisions for a party to lose its party status due to bad behavior (unlike ballot question sponsors, whom the Legislature has targeted with penalties that include bans from participation in ballot question campaigns). The only way a party can lose its official status seems to be by failing for two election cycles in a row to field at least one statewide candidate who wins at least 2.5% of the general election vote (see SDCL 12-1-3. The SDGOP could thus put as many dogs on the ballot as placeholders as they want and face no legal penalty.
Cory
Even if they are declared an organized crime organization? or a terrorist organization? Even then they won’t lose status as a political party? Doesn’t seem right.
Cory
With the current system for political pacs, super pacs, etc. how is it possible to know if they are simply money laundering to buy candidates?