From my mailbox, I received one postcard from John Fitzgerald today, and two from Lance Russell, both candidates for Attorney General at the upcoming State Republican Convention:
39 thoughts on “AG Candidates Russell & Fitzgerald hit with postcards today”
Comments are closed.
They are easily the frontrunners. A 4th candidate would be nice.
keep dreaming
Keep dreaming
You don’t have a clue, do you? I guess the primary results will be a big surprise to you.
I could see Lance Russell running this same ad in his state senate race also…
A story on heidelberger’s blog about how it is illegal to run for both offices at once by Lance Russell.
He has to choose before the convention
AG is a convention race. He’s not ‘a candidate’ until nominated by the GOP Convention… And technically, he’s not even officially a candidate until those results are certified by the party to the Secretary of State.
As I understand the legal interpretation, if he won the nomination, at that point he’d have to resign his Senate candidacy.
(And as I also understand, all of this was cleared with the State before his candidacy began.)
There you go, Pat, bringing facts into it!
Pat the first sentence of 12-6-3; “Candidacy for two offices at one election prohibited–Exceptions.”, could easily be interpreted as covering someone being nominated at a convention in place of the primary election held at a later date but it is a gray area and skirts the letter of the law.
(Disclaimer- I’m not involved in his campaign) But I believe Lance had some of those legal questions answered before he started.
That being said, running for more than one at once does open himself up for criticism by his opponents.
The SOS office should clarify this. We have too many interpretations.
I believe Cory H is correct.
The SD GOP should also.
Certainly, “someone” has the authority (if not the requirement) to make a determination as to the legality of Lance’s candidacy, and should publicly do so before the convention. However, I’m really not sure who that “someone” actually is, whether it’s the SOS, the AG or the Court.
Can anyone clarify exactly WHO should decide the issue?
I don’t believe the South Dakota Republican Party can make a legal judgement, nor should it be in the position of judging candidate eligibility as defined by South Dakota law.
I don’t want to publicly favor any potential candidate prior to their nomination, as a County Chair I will support and promote the party’s candidate, but this is an issue that needs to be addressed before any candidate is selected.
If nothing else, if Lance should win the nomination for AG and this issue HASN’T been clarified, I can only assume the Democrat candidate will make this an issue in the general election.
“Someone” really needs to step up and settle this before the convention.
12-6-3. Candidacy for two offices at one election prohibited–Exceptions. No person may be a CANDIDATE (emphasis mine) for nomination or election to more than one public office except for the office of President of the United States or vice president of the United States. However, a candidate for any such office is not prohibited from being elected to any one or more party offices as may be provided in chapter 12-5.
Source: SDC 1939, § 16.0215; SL 1973, ch 74, § 2; SL 2002, ch 73, § 3; SL 2015, ch 76, § 3.
I’m with you William. The SD GOP might not be able to determine this but they certainly could ask for an opinion from the SOS or the AG.
It appears from the case cited by someone on Heidelberger’s site states that the decision has already been done by our state Supreme Court…and the plain meaning of the statute says you can’t do what Lance Russell is doing plain and simple as the Court says.
I don’t see how he gets around it in light of this decision.
Read it yourself.
http://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/27956.pdf
It seems pretty straightforward to me after reading the link.
“the circuit court ruled that the candidate’s second filings violated SDCL 12-6-3’s prohibition against dual candidacies and thus were invalid”
Looks like leagally, Russell needs to choose one race or the other.
Go Fitz!
Lance Russel kind of looks like the former mayor of Toronto, Canada … doesn’t he not? I believe his name was Rob Ford.
I was going to say Mark Barnett. He is so qualified he even looks like a former 3 term AG.
Gee, Fitzgerald’s card shows his wife and kids so he is definitely the most qualified, according to some nitwits; apparently you have to be married with kids to be in the GOP. Nitwits.
First, for the record, I don’t like the rule for primaries and this don’t have a problem with Russell running for two offices. I like the rule for general elections.
However, what I like is irrelevant. What is relevant is the law and thus agree with Beal. Whoever is responsible needs to issue an opinion that is clear in this situation and we live with it. The chaos of a convention-nominated AG either determined ineligible or charged with election law violation would be too great when it can be resolved now.
I thought it was illegal to take pictures in courtrooms also –especially for political purposes.
If it is illegal or not, I think it looks very bad to run for 2 offices at once. PICK ONE
It just screams career politician to me, which I am so sick of!
It is not fair to the voters of District 30 or the state at large. Essentially he is saying to District 30 voters, vote for me in case I lost in the AG race, but if I win the AG race I am going to abandon you for a different job. Shaking my head.
I agree, it looks horrible for Russell to be running for two offices. If I were a delegate or voter in either of his two races I wouldn’t be voting for him. It screams career Politician.
Can a petition be presented to someone or somewhere to force the issue and make Russell have to choose one race or the other?
I’m a confused or not seeing something.
Why does it look bad? Bad to who?
No matter what and to whom it is bad, it is a reason upon which a voter can consider. Just like ever other reason upon which a person can make a decision. We dont’ have to give reasons at the ballot box. Just vote.
That said, I think what the law says needs to be determined definitively. If the law says no, he has to choose. If the law says yes, Russell can do what he wants and the voters/delegates can make up their own minds.
To be clear, I have no problem with people running for multiple offices during the primary/convention processes. However, with two exceptions, I don’t think people should be on a general election ballot twice. Exceptions are Vice President and Lt. Governor. Rationale: Both are positions one is “drafted” for and we should make it easy for people to accept the call to a higher office. But, to run and aspire to two offices in a general election is unacceptable to me.
bad to voters, bad to the public…I don’t care about you voters of Dist 30 unless I get beat in the AG race then I’ll still represent you.
If I win the AG race…thanks but no thanks Dist 30 voters….
You can’t live without me…so thus I will run for multiple offices at once and hope something sticks so I can continue to be a career politician.
Well said.
The offices conflict and are in different branches of government, so as the court said in the case cited they are not compatible.
Anonymous 10:19: I really must be dense. You don’t like this so don’t vote for him. You have that choice as do the voters in his district and the convention delegates. Why do you think those who want him to serve them in one capacity or the other and are not concerned about this to be denied a vote?
Anonymous 10:21: I must be dense again. What is the relevance of “compatibility” one way or another? Nobody is suggesting that he can appear on the general election ballot for both these races.
Let’s act like we live in a republican democracy and let people vote for their representatives.
I don’t know anywhere where Russell has said he won’t run for both offices in the general…where have you seen that? Is that an assumption?
Troy, explain to me what Russell’s status is currently now?
Is he not a candidate for nomination to the state senate?
Assuming he wins the primary and keeps that status.
When nominated at the convention he will also be a candidate for nomination for Attorney General, will he not?
–at that point it is clear to me he is violating the law.
I don’t see anywhere in the law that distinguishes primary, convention any specific time…it does not say just in the general election. I think most legislators would confirm that “nomination or election” represent a specific distinction for a reason. If the legislature wanted to say just in the general election it would have said so.
The law says:
No person may be a candidate for nomination or election to more than one public office except for the office of President of the United States or vice president of the United States.
Anonymous 10:50: For me, there are two issues:
1) I don’t know what his status, procedure and proper interpretation of the law. If you read all my comments, if he wins his Senate primary, I think we need to have the law interpreted definitively by a proper authority. I do not want to have an AG candidate selected at convention who can either be disqualified or charged with violating election law. Without definitive clarification, I think it would be deriliction of duty and inviting scandal to select an AG candidate whose very candidacy could be a violation of law.
2) I don’t read the law as you do (which means we need someone to declare with authority). Running in primaries is running for nomination. Running at convention is running for nomination. Running for election is post nomination. That is why we need this matter clarified if he gets the Senate nomination.
Again to be clear: I have no problem with people running for multiple office in primaries and/or convention and letting the voters/delegates to make decisions. I don’t think the law prohibits it. If the law does prohibit what Russell is doing, I’d support changing the law.
Good discussion Troy!
I agree with #1…it needs to be clarified.
2–you seem to admit he is running for nomination in the primary and convention which the plain reading of the law prohibits…as it says nomination OR election. reminded me of the FBI director and Hillary read it all the way guilty guilty, nope not gonna charge her…huh 🙂
I read somewhere Russell voted for this law so it is going to be hard for him to argue he did not know about it also.
All moot if Rampelberg wins the primary….which could happen as I would think he would make this an issue, but it should be clarified for the future also.
Regarding #2, you might be right but I think the nomination process at convention might be a different enough animal for it to be open to interpretation. An interpretation, I want clarified prior to the Convention. In my mind (knowing I’m not a lawyer), even if I stipulate to your “plain reading,” I don’t think legally he is an AG candidate for nomination until the Convention opens AND his name is nominated and seconded.
As I think about this, there are three potential outcomes:
1) Russell has to choose what office he is seeking if he gets both nominations.
2) Russell has to resign his Senate nomination prior to his name being placed in nomination with his permission (gray issue if one is drafted which is part of the reason I want to change the law if what Russell is doing is against hte law).
3) We don’t get a definitive ruling until we have a problem (Russell is nominated for two races) and he is charged with violating election law. This is my first priority to prevent.
I agree with you that we need to prevent confusion for the sake of all candidates and voters.
I don’t want to see a scene where he is “nominated” at convention and before the delegates vote the convention is trying to figure out if he is eligible or not…talk about a mess.
If he became the nominee of the party in both races I am certain the democrats would sue seeking to have one or both declared invalid and win a race by default…a horrible result, but one that might be legal.
But I think it needs to be determined NOW, as one could argue he is running for both races and he is ineligible to run for state senate which could throw that race into chaos.
The sooner, the better.
I certainly believe that an argument can be made that by attending Lincoln Day Dinners and announcing his candidacy for AG, while simultaneously having filed the paperwork to run as a State Senator he is indeed a candidate in multiple elections, thus he is in violation of the the law.
Just the fact that his status is unclear, it’s obvious that the issue needs to be clarified BEFORE the convention.
Again, my question is WHO needs to make the determination and HOW can this be clarified before the convention?
It’s certainly not a function of the party to make a legal judgement during the nomination process.
If the issue is not decided before the convention, it’s a gift to the Democrats in the general, no matter what the ruling is, regardless of who is chosen as the AG candidate.
As a starting point, shouldn’t the Republican Party be researching this?
It doesn’t appear, to me, that the party can actually make a legal decision, as the issue isn’t about a party rule, but a matter of law.
The prior case was decided after the election, however the specifics of the case are not identical, so it leaves room for doubt as to the legality of this particular situation.
That’s why I’ve been asking if anyone knows what the process is, and who to contact, to make a determination prior to the convention.
I agree with #1…it needs to be clarified.
My next questions are: WHO needs to clarify this prior to the convention and HOW can they be prompted to do so?