I was on the radio today (KSOO on the Patrick Lalley show) talking about the District 29 and 30 replacement elections taking place this week, when we got speaking about the D30 Senate Race.
If you recall, in District 30 State Senator Lance Russell resigned form the State Senate to run for Attorney General, a nomination that he was not successful in obtaining.
Now that the selection for a replacement is to be made – on Friday in Custer as I understand – I’m hearing two candidates names in contention for the seat. Bruce Rampelberg, who lost to Lance in the Primary is said to have an interest in being the candidate. And so does Lance Russell, making an attempt to reclaim the seat he’s been successful in running for more than once.
There are those who raise questions about the legality of a person running for a seat that the same person resigned from, and we can anticipate they’re going to be louder when the vote actually happens. But the question is – are the people who think it’s ok going to be louder, or the ones who don’t? And how contentious is that decision going to be?
I suspect it’s not going to be finished on Friday.
And ultimately, it might be the lawyers that win.
Can someone please explain why the Secretary of State or our AG don’t provide a ruling or position on Russell’s eligibility. I thought it was the Secretary of State’s responsibility to certify candidates as eligible and to certify elections. If she feels there is a legal question to be addressed here, then isn’t it her responsibility to ask the AG to address that question and for the AG to respond? It seems odd that this can’t be addressed prior to the District 30 Republicans moving forward. How will she certify the candidate put forward by District 30 as the legitimate candidate? Why run the risk of having someone challenge their decision in the courts?
i’d be happy with a coherent general election candidate list to view. let’s just do that.