Legislator represents conspiracy theory e-mail as coming from House of Representatives. Residency conspiracy dog still isn’t going to hunt.

From my e-mail box, a reader (and GOP delegate from far east river) asks me… “why am I getting this?” in reference to a conspiracy laden e-mail from State Representative Julie Frye – Mueller, supposedly using her official State e-mail account:

I’ve redacted quite a bit of the overly long e-mail, because that’s about all their “evidence” is worth.

Regardless, it’s questionable why Representative Julie Frye-Mueller would represent this e-mail directed out to a Republican Convention delegate as being an e-mail from “the South Dakota House of Representatives,” when it most certainly is not.  (The last I knew, the House of Representatives doesn’t send out blast e-mails with Mailchimp either.)

As in the prior Mail Chimp blasted e-mail from the previous fake group “Native Integrity” pushing this silliness, this e-mail blast is filled with similar bullshit and fakery, first and foremost that people have been ignoring “this growing scandal “months,” when in fact, it hasn’t really been 30 days since the manufactured charges started churning.”

The problem is that for all the “sturm und drang” that proponents such as Shad Olson and Jordan Mason have attempted to manufacture by proving that people may have rented or owned property in another state, they really haven’t proven anything regarding actual residency being established elsewhere.  (In a quick glance of voter records I’ve reviewed, there’s ample evidence that both legislators-elect established residency and have voted in South Dakota from 2016 forward.)

To date, I haven’t seen anyone come forward with substantive residency information that they’d voted in another state since registering in SD in 2016. In fact, I believe the opposite is true, where there’s evidence of employment in South Dakota during that time in question.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy hindering the progress and parrying Democrats at every turn. But I’ve also been around long enough that you can generally tell when a dog isn’t going to hunt.

No matter how many e-mail blasts people send, this dog was lame and suffering from mange before someone placed it in the truck. Absent any significant evidence, that’s where it’s going to stay.

40 Replies to “Legislator represents conspiracy theory e-mail as coming from House of Representatives. Residency conspiracy dog still isn’t going to hunt.”

  1. Anonymous

    At least South Dakota Corn Growers will benefit from all of this. Popcorn! Popcorn! Raise your hands or step right up.

    Reply
  2. Wow

    Why has this now come to light? Why not during the primary?? Makes no sense to have let this go so long and then start screaming “Foul!”

    Reply
  3. Tara Volesky

    Well the newly elected Legislators should welcome an investigation. People you have nothing to hide, hide nothing. No big deal.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Tara the problem is in trying to prove a negative. It’s really hard to prove somebody wasn’t living here. If they have both been registered to vote here since 2016 and haven’t been voting anywhere else, they could have been living in Europe and still be South Dakota residents.

      Reply
      1. Tara Volesky

        Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t they have to live in their district 2 years before they can run for office?

        Reply
      2. Tara Volesky

        Nothing negative here, let’s just get to the facts. Just show me the facts that they have been residents of SD for the last 2 years.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Why don’t YOU produce the facts that they HAVEN’T been living here for the past two years?
          It’s very hard to prove a negative. Owning or renting property in another location doesn’t prove it. Working in another place doesn’t prove it.

          What’s the fraudulent address that was used on the nominating petitions? 1200 N Lacrosse in Rapid City? That’s the address given for “Natve Integrity.”
          But it’s Walmart.

          Reply
    2. Anonymous

      Tara, please give us the address on Red Dawn Foster’s nominating petitions. A screen shot of the address on the petitions should be provided. Why should we believe what is said here when we aren’t even given the address so we can google it ourselves?
      What are YOU trying to hide?

      Reply
  4. Tara Volesky

    Well the newly elected Legislators should welcome an investigation. People you have nothing to hide, hide nothing. No big deal. Proof of residency would put it to rest.

    Reply
  5. a friend of education

    Pat, as usual, makes numerous strong, persuasive arguments but I don’t understand why the phrase sturm und drang is presented within quotes. Did Shad-O or Jordan Mason use that expression? Wouldn’t seem to be their idiom.

    Reply
        1. Pat Powers Post author

          Steve, do you think people should be convicted without evidence? If it isn’t there, it isn’t there.

          Reply
          1. Steve Sibson

            No I don’t, but I also disagree with ignoring the evidence. And there should be a legislative process to evaluate the evidence. I think it is premature to make judgment one way or the other. The electoral process needs credibility going forward, so we should not be quick to sweep this under the rug.

            Reply
  6. Tara Volesky

    I think the people of Pine Ridge want to know. Did Livermont lose also? I would like to know. It shouldn’t be hard to provide documentation.

    Reply
  7. Troy Jones

    I am obviously missing something.

    Prior to the printing of ballots, the State GOP filed various actions against both Democrat and Independent candidates. In one case, the Democrats had to have a new convention to fix their candidate problems. And, if I recall correctly, some Independents were struck from the ballot.

    Since nobody (opponents, political parties, or citizens) contested these candidates prior to the printing of the ballots, they got on the ballot and were elected. Thus, according to prior court rulings, these people are duly elected.

    The time to protest them was prior to being on the ballot. Or am I missing something?

    Reply
    1. PlanningStudent

      I think the body general always has final say in the seating of members. Couldn’t the State Senate or State House of Reps come to their own conclusion and choose not to seat?

      I’m not weighing in on whether this is a real issue that needs addressing just pointing a procedure that I though I understood could be used…

      Reply
    2. Steve Sibson

      A dead person was duly elected, but that person is not being seated. But I do agree that this stuff should get sorted out prior to the ballots becoming official.

      Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        And, if Chuck had shown up at the swearing in ceremony, I’m sure he’d have been sworn in. 🙂 Happy New Year Steve.

        Reply
    3. Tara Volesky

      Maybe they didn’t gather all the information until after the election. Just want to know if they were residents for 2 years prior to running. Now tell the truth.

      Reply
      1. Troy Jones

        Tara,

        I have no idea. But, once one is in the ballot, mant remedies have expired, except reversing the vote which should be given substantial consideration.

        Reply
  8. Tara Volesky

    I don’t think so Troy. The law is the law. So back to my original question, were they residents of their district for 2 years prior to running for office? I cant’t make it much easier than that. Thanks.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      Tara, Let me repeat. I don’t know. So, do you know, without a shadow of doubt? Otherwise, the benefit of doubt will defer to the voters.

      Reply
    2. Sen. Jim Stalzer

      We are told this is the controlling section of law.

      12-1-4. Criteria for determining voting residence. For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person has fixed his or her habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return.
      A person who has left home and gone into another state or territory or county of this state for a temporary purpose only has not changed his or her residence.
      A person is considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no present intention of leaving.
      If a person moves to another state, or to any of the other territories, with the intention of making it his or her permanent home, the person thereby loses residence in this state.

      Reply
      1. Kelly Lieberg

        12-1-4. Criteria for determining voting residence. I can’t help but think of Tom Daschle when I read that. Funny.

        Reply
  9. Tara Volesky

    Well Troy , I really don’t know, but I would wager I am right. I stand by the law. Just would like to know if they have been residents of their districts for 2 years prior to running for office. I like to keep it simple.Thanks again.

    Reply
  10. MC

    Wow, where to start?

    First, I am going to agree with Pat on this. Unless there is some really damning evidence yet to be uncovered. There isn’t much here.

    The question that comes to mind is what is residency?

     SDLC  12-1-4. Criteria for determining voting residence. For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person has fixed his or her habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return.
    A person who has left home and gone into another state or territory or county of this state for a temporary purpose only has not changed his or her residence.
    A person is considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no present intention of leaving.
    If a person moves to another state, or to any of the other territories, with the intention of making it his or her permanent home, the person thereby loses residence in this state.

    (my emphasis)

    The word intention speaks to the person state of mind. With tax records and rental agreements might be enough to rise an eyebrow, but, not enough deny them voting or running for office. More information is needed.

    We need to look at employment locations
    Where they receive their medical care
    Where their children go to school
    What church did they attend
    Where were their cars registered
    We really need to look at where the person does most of their business at.
    and so much more

    I believe all these questions should have been brought up and answered before the primary election.

    Rarely do these type of things happen in a vacuum. I have heard rumors that other questionable tactics were being used to get Native Americans to vote for Democrats.

    If anything we need to investigate the South Dakota Democrat Party actions on the reservations. I agree with Tara let’s get all the facts in the open before passing any judgement.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Since when does SDCL trump our state’s constitution? The answer is simple: never. The legislature just took their oath of office vowing to support the state’s constitution and the US constitution. I see no where in their oath to uphold the laws of the state which they have created. The fact that both CH and PP are on the same page as this is alarming and disheartening. It’s time that legislators stop this double standard and start doing the duty they are elected for.

      Reply
      1. Pat Powers Post author

        As I’ve said before, not my first rodeo.

        Unless you can conclusively prove residency was established elsewhere, that dog isn’t going to hunt. The complainants haven’t met the burden of proof.

        I’m pretty sure the caucuses have run this by counsel, and been told the same thing.

        Reply
  11. Troy Jones

    Tara, most people who don’t know wait for evidence before asserting they are right.

    And keep in mind residency is not as black and white. Am I a resident if I am out of state doing the following: on active duty, in college, on a long term work assugnment, a snow bird, working for our US Senator, caring for my sick parent in AZ, living incognito from my abusive spouse, homeschooling my actress teen child in California, have a S.D. drivers licence and RV licence traveling the US in my RV?

    Reply
    1. Tara Volesky

      OK Troy so can I go back to my hometown of Mobridge a few months before the next election and run for the Legislature? I have lived out of state and in state but maybe just maybe my intentions are to move back to the great town of Mobridge. I have an address there.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Yes. The requirement is that you be a resident of the State of South Dakota for two years prior, not the district. A qualified elector is someone who meets the statutory residency requirements.

        Qualifications for legislative office–Officers ineligible. No person is eligible for the office of senator who is not a qualified elector in the district from which such person is chosen, a citizen of the United States, and who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, and who has not been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election.
        No person is eligible for the office of representative who is not a qualified elector in the district from which such person is chosen, and a citizen of the United States, and who has not been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election, and who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

        Reply
  12. Anonymous

    Also SDCL 12-1-4 Only pertains to voting residence, not running for political office. The contitution in http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Constitution/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-3-3 states: Qualifications for legislative office–Officers ineligible. No person is eligible for the office of senator who is not a qualified elector in the district from which such person is chosen, a citizen of the United States, and who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, and who has not been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election.
    No person is eligible for the office of representative who is not a qualified elector in the district from which such person is chosen, and a citizen of the United States, and who has not been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election, and who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

    2 years is the requirement, not intent, not living in another area and wanting to run for office in another district. The precedence being set here is scary. Letting this stand is going to open up a can of worms no one in the legislature wants to touch.

    Reply
  13. Troy Jones

    Mike,

    Great post as intention is the operative word and might make your questions irrelevant.

    employment locations: temporary assignment or temporary job to accommodate a special need.

    Where they receive their medical care: I am and MC Anderson getting cancer treatment?

    Where their children go to school: kids are with me while I live with parents while spouse is deployed.

    What church did they attend: I go to church where I am on Sunday.

    Where were their cars registered: I register my car there because I have to for good insurance.

    We really need to look at where the person does most of their business: I buy grocery’s and pay medical bills in another state while my sick child is in a special facility.

    Reply
    1. MC

      Troy,
      It is possible they were temporarily transfer to another location and rented an apartment while there. However they intended to return.

      My lovely bride spent six months in Ann Arbor, Michigan, waiting for a heart to come available for my son. yet the Primary Care Physician/Team was in Sioux Falls. The Intention was once there was a transplant they would return home.

      While out of state we bought groceries, and other items, however, we used our hometown bank.

      I attended other churches, however I always return to our home church whenever I can.

      I’m not saying there are not any flaws, however we need to look at their past to help determine their intentions. It is not just one thing as much as the sum of everything.

      Reply
  14. Troy Jones

    I agree that two years is a requirement.

    If I legitimately establish S.D. residence and one of the above I listed occurs (ie military service), I intend to remain and return to SD, and I don’t establish residency in another place, I remain a resident of S.D.

    Reply
  15. Troy Jones

    Tara, if you never established residency somewhere else, including voting, you may have a case to make if you can credibly assert you always intended to make Mobridge your home, especially if you always voted and visited Mobridge.

    My point is only this is not black and white.

    Reply
  16. Pingback: And the silly post-election residency challenges die with a whimper. – South Dakota War College

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.