D7 State Senate Democrat Mary Perpich has been successfully challenged, and will not be placed on the ballot.

Pat Powers

And the first Democrat candidate falls.

I’m hearing word this weekend that Brookings Democrat & D7 State Senate Candidate Mary Perpich had her nominating petitions successfully challenged, and she has been knocked off the ballot for the November election.  The word is that Perpich’s petition signatures were challenged and after reviewing, all 66 of her 66 signatures were declared invalid.

What went wrong? I’m being told that the person (House Minority Leader Spence Hawley) who notarized the verification of circulator section on all five petition sheets apparently does not hold a current notary commission. And as a result, Perpich will not be placed on the ballot.

Unless an independent or third party candidate files petitions to run, this means that Republican Candidate VJ Smith will automatically win the election.

21 thoughts on “D7 State Senate Democrat Mary Perpich has been successfully challenged, and will not be placed on the ballot.”

    1. I am not speaking of a court of law, rather I am speaking of a court of equity on the question as to whether the petitions should be accepted.

      1. The petitions require a notary to sign off on the circulator’s signature. If the notary wasn’t a notary, I believe that’s a fatal error. And not one a judge would overturn.

        1. I think you are right, if you request an opinion from a judge in a court of law, but if you request an opinion from what is called a court of equity, the outcome could be different.

          In a civil matter, the plaintiff has the right to request a particular court perspective from the civil judge with the judge having the final say on that a course.

          1. Although a mandamus court sits in equity, the only thing that a judge would be authorized to look at in a mandamus action would be whether it was in substantial compliance. The South Dakota Supreme Court, sitting in equity, already ruled that improper notarization is fatal and not in substantial compliance. See Nist v. Herseth, 270 N.W.2d 565, 569 (SD 1978). I have a hard time thinking any judge is going to go the other way on this.

            1. Thank you for your constructive criticism. But is the duty with the petitioner or the notary, when it comes to being in “substantial compliance?” That could possibly be a mitigating circumstance which warrants a interlocutory opinion from the State Supreme Court, however, right, or not?

              1. The Nist case included notary screw ups like the notary forgetting to stamp the verification, so I guess my answer is both can lead to a failure to substantially comply. There is no right or ability to an interlocatory appeal in one of these. But they could file an appeal after a trial court heard it. Regardless, I don’t think this is getting overurned.

      2. Yeah, let’s bend the rules just a little bit in this one little instance. Oh, and let’s let some of the illegal aliens in and give them amnesty just this one time because it won’t happen again. She didn’t follow the rules so she is out! Hard cheese, Dems!

        2. So she knew that she was not following the rules? A notary is analogous to an attorney, in terms of the representation of a client. The presumption is that the professional is legit. If they are not, then a remedy should be afforded to the client.

  3. There is still time for an independent to file. Seems like the Dems should find someone.

  7. Can Perpich run as an Indy or does the fact that she filed as a Dem in the race preclude her from doing so?

    1. She could run as an independent, but I don’t know that she’s ever been anything more than a placeholder. This is her second or third time at the rodeo.

  8. VSG,

    That is not how equity is applied. First, we don’t have a court of equity in the US but when normally applied it is in a civil matter between two individual parties. Second, in administrative matters it can be applied when the written law applied in a particular case would be excessive in light of mitigating circumstances. Not following the law written before you on the petition leaves little room for mitigating circumstances.

    She will not be on the ballot as the law is clear. If heard, it will be a summary decision.

      1. Yes, he said it much better than me. My unintentional less than accurate use of “mitigating circumstances” vs. the correct “substantial compliance” mucked it up. Foggy understanding seldom adds clarity.

Comments are closed.