You’re not gonna believe this one…

While on the way home from convention, I just had this tip sent to me.

Allegedly, Senator Stace Nelson is asking for a recount.

Not as a result of the thin margin in the first vote for Attorney General, but for the complete blowout vote margin between himself and Larry Rhoden in the race for Lt. Governor.

If I had to take a stab in the dark, I suspect Stace still loses to Larry Rhoden.

And guess what? I’m sure there’s more to come on convention! Stay tuned!

38 Replies to “You’re not gonna believe this one…”

  1. Anonymous

    Here’s the recount:

    Larry Rhoden: 517
    Stace Nelson: 2 votes
    People thinking they were voting for
    Chris Nelson: 100

    Reply
    1. Anon

      I believe there was a Larry Nelson in there as well.

      Would this stem from the Pennington County delegate number issue? Or lack thereof?

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    What does this even mean? The convention is over. The vote wasn’t even close. How would this even work? To whom does he direct this request?

    Reply
  3. Troy Jones

    At what point does repudiation after repudiation after repudiation make one a certified RINO and nut job?

    Is there any standards?

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Rhoden and Russell both seemed to think so. Stace is probably ineligible now. We all know how much he cares about the rule book.

      Reply
    2. William Beal

      It’s my understanding that although the Secretary of State’s Office has offered its opinion on how it interprets SDCL 12-6-3 ( Candidacy for two offices at one election prohibited), it’s yet to be interpreted in Court. Obviously, the other candidates faced with a decision, complied with the SoS recommendation.

      I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure exactly who has standing (resident in the district / SDGOP, etc) to contest Sen. Nelson’s candidacy for re-election, but will be surprised if it’s not challenged by his Democratic opponent after it’s too late to replace him on the ballot, if no one else brings a challenge before then.

      Reply
    3. Anonymous

      Well actually not. The law says a person can’t run for more than one PUBLIC office at a time.
      Political parties are actually private organizations. When seeking a nomination from a private organization, one is not actually seeking a public office until the nomination is won and certified by the SOS.
      Therefore is is perfectly within the rights of the private organization to charge membership dues, poll taxes or registration fees, cast weighted ballots or do anything else which would not be allowed in a public election. Because it’s all private until it is sent on to the SOS. Then it’s public.

      Reply
      1. William Beal

        I believe it is the phrase “No person may be a candidate for NOMINATION or election to more than one public office” that renders the statute unclear and subjects it to a possible challenge in court.

        Although, it’s true that political parties are private organization, it’s their nominating process that is used to select the party’s candidate to then be submitted for certification by the state. A failure to win the nomination would not negate the fact they were clearly a candidate FOR such a nomination.

        It appears to me, the legality IS debatable, until it’s decided in court.

        http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-6-3

        Reply
        1. Lee Schoenbeck

          You read that statute, and it’s pretty hard to see how Stace survives a mandamus action to have his name removed from the ballot. You get one bullet per cycle and he fired his in Lt Gov race. It’s pretty straight forward English. If challenged, he would have to hope that he got a judge that just didn’t want to mess with the election process. If he gets a strict constructionist, his one race is done.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            Can we send this old broken down old MARINE out to pasture? If so, where will the celebration party be?

            Reply
          2. AP

            We could interpret this one other way. By operation of law, the nomination was ineffectual, votes for Stace invalid, and Larry’s nomination was unanimous!

            Reply
            1. William Beal

              “No person may be a candidate for NOMINATION or election to more than one public office”

              There are two ways that I know of to become a candidate on a general election ballot: File paperwork for a qualifying election or become a candidate for nomination through a political parties process.

              “Nomination is the legal process by which election authorities screen the candidates recommended by the party, approve their candidacy, and print their names on the ballot paper.”
              http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pcb/pcb02/pcb02a/default

              By explicitly using the phrase “candidate for nomination” in the intent of the statute is clearly meant to include the nomination selection process used by political parties.

              I trust that Lance Russell understands the law well enough to have known the intent of the statute, and that is why he withdrew his candidacy for state senate before the nominating process began.

              Frankly, I’m surprised that Stace disregarded Lance’s example, as I assumed he would respect Lance’s legal opinion as much as I do.

              Reply
          3. The Sage

            I don’t like Nelson any more than you do Lee, but you know that election laws are construed liberally.

            Under your “one bullet per cycle” rule, Rhoden could not stand for Lt. Gov. because he fired his bullet already. Nobody is arguing he can’t stand for Lt. Gov.

            The law could easily be read to say that while Nelson remained on the ballot for the first race (senate), that his candidacy for nomination to the second race (Lt. Gov) was null and void from the beginning. Maybe the rules committee at the convention should have ruled Nelson’s nomination out of order for that reason and saved everybody from wasting time listening to his BS.

            Reply
            1. William Beal

              The Rules Committee has no legal authority to issue such a rule, absent a clear legal decision by the Judicial branch.

              As this comment thread demonstrates, this is a legal issue that is open to interpretation and requires a opinion issued a judge, not a private organization.

              Reply
          4. The Sage

            I’m guessing that the reason Nelson was allowed to put his nomination in for the second office is because if he had been ruled ineligible for nomination for the second office he might have sued so it was easier to put up with his BS for an hour and to kill his nomination with a vote than to drag out the issue with a BS lawsuit for the next few months and risk the 1% chance he might prevail with his lawsuit.

            Reply
            1. William Beal

              Indeed, but by doing so, he’s increased the likelihood that the statute will be clarified in court by his Democrat opponent, or some other individual or group with legal standing to challenge his state senate candidacy.

              The SDGOP simply allowed Sen. Nelson to make his own decision regarding the issue.

              Reply
      2. Anonymous

        I like that explanation. I agree that Russell shouldn’t have had to resign, and Rhoden also for that matter, until after convention if they won.

        Reply
    4. Anonymous

      Regardless, probably best he ran instead of whining later “I didn’t get a chance, otherwise, I’d have won!!” or like he says on his FB page “I was honored to be nominated…” in which people respond ‘congratulations!’ but he never tells them he lost or didn’t stand a chance. It’s all show-boating. Take it to the courts!

      Reply
  4. grudznick

    Mr. Nelson has nightmares of the Rhoden Rhangers, thundering down the hillside towards him as he cries, loudly but in vain, “point of order, point of order.”

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Would somebody please help this man find his big red shoes, rubber nose and face paint. He seems lost without them.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    This is exactly what happens when you give a loonbag any amount of power. Vote Stage out. He’s not a true Conservative. Probably why he has such a grudge with Rhoden.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Liz May with a ~70’s % conservative voting record. And was just a pawn in Russell’s/Nelson’s camp which was obvious by Russell whispering in her ear after her ‘point of order’ and then her ‘I wish to rescind’ comment that the chair didn’t hear after he went into his lengthy explanation, afterwhich she gave an embarrassing ‘oh, the candidates don’t want this’ comment. Odd that she didn’t get the memo that um, no, only one wing-nut per race (night before probably had the request to have AG before LG but then once Stace was running for LG (on his own behalf), then NO, they don’t want to run Russel against him)). Lots of angles but she was and looked totally clueless and like a puppet. Sad.

      Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Stace Nelson wasted an hour (or more?) of time for each of the 700+ people at the convention so that he could showboat. His ego is as shameful as his actions in and away from the legislature.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I agree.I was hoping to get out of there a lot sooner, but his snow cone’s chance in Hades attempt to get the nom wasted a lot of people time. His speech was a lot of bloviating.

      Reply
  8. Anne Beal

    Nelson continues to listen to the voices in his head.
    Now he is saying Matt Bruner and I tried to take God out of the platform and were responsible for the omission of the “life begins at conception” statement.

    Marilyn and I were assigned to review the sections on governmental affairs and public safety & security. Matt & John were assigned to Agriculture, natural resources, & energy and Health & Human services.

    The people who tackled family and community values, which covered the issues of abortion and religion, were Chairman Steve Haugaard and Dale Bartscher.
    If anybody was trying to take God and Life out of the platform, it was those two. Good luck trying to pin the blame on them.

    When it was brought to the attention of the delegates that the statement about “life begins at conception” had been omitted, I deferred to the Chairman of the committee. It was his section of the platform to fine-tune. I abstained from the first vote on the subject, and when Chairman Haugaard returned with it later I voted for it.

    Anybody who wants to challlenge the religious & pro-life credentials of Haugaard and Bartscher can just go ahead and make a fool of himself.
    Making a fool of himself is what Stace Nelson does best.

    Reply
  9. Troy Jones

    Since Rhoden is by any objective measure a strong conservative (ignoring Nelson’s attempt to select bills to make himself look good and the guy who beat him in teh US Senate primary look bad), these bozos who keep calling him a liberal just keep insuring they become totally irrelevant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.