Freedom Caucus demanding immediate action on election oversight issues… that they won’t identify.

@SoDakCampaigns

Got one of the dumbest press releases this afternoon that I think I’ve seen in a while.  The leaders of the SD Freedom Caucus are raising the alarm about time-sensitive election issues and demanding not just action but immediate action from the Governor and Attorney General on a voter integrity issue…

…except, they won’t tell us what the issue is.

Freedom Caucus Calls for Election Integrity

Just weeks before the 2022 general election begins, the South Dakota Freedom Caucus called on the Governor and fellow legislators to join them in taking immediate action in light of election integrity findings the caucus says they have recently become aware of.

The caucus has not disclosed the specific details regarding their findings, but stated that some of the issues are time sensitive and affect the oversight of the election process.

and.

The Freedom Caucus stated that they will be speaking with the Governor and Acting Attorney General Mark Vargo in the next following days to seek immediate action due to the time sensitive nature of the issue. The caucus said that they will provide further details of their findings at that time.

Maybe they should wait until they can tell us what these time-sensitive election integrity issues actually are?

41 thoughts on “Freedom Caucus demanding immediate action on election oversight issues… that they won’t identify.”

        1. With Liz Cheney, for instance, we know what about her platform is shaky.

          With Ms. Fry-Mueller, I’m not sure where you disagree or why. It makes a difference in the effectiveness of the assertion that you think she’s terrible.

          Is it religion? School policy? Something else?

          One important example is how Ms. Fry-Mueller was out ahead on many issues and proven right especially about things like parental consent with respect to schools administering vaccinations without the parents’ knowledge or permission.

          If you didn’t know this was proved a reasonable concern, you might not be giving Ms. Frye-Mueller enough credit?

          1. Voter fraud in 30. Nobody would vote for that crazy of a RINO. Find someone that had surgery without parental consent in South Dakota. She claims that they do it all the time, just wondering where.

          2. Congresswoman* Cheney voted with former President Trump 97% of the time. How can you say her platform was shaky?

            Maybe your judgment is shaky, and that’s putting it mildly.

            She made a politically ending decision to take a stand after January 6th. Otherwise she has been a staunch Trump voter the whole time. Actually intellectual work will show you that, not trying to justify some hack from D-30 that no one really cares about. She stands out – because she’s a terrible legislator.

    2. Senator Julie Frye Muller won because she is much more conservative than Tim Goodwin. Julie’s conservative score for 2022 was 89.5% for 2022 and 93.8% for 2021. Tiny Tim’s was 59.1% for 2022 with 73.9% in 2021. Then of course, Goodwin also was instrumental in recruiting Democrats to change parties to GOP to run against Conservatives Tina Mullally 95% in 2022 & 90.9% for 2021) & Tony Randolp (98-5% 2022 & 87% in 2021) both more conservative than Goodwin/ We also need to remember that Mr Goodwin wanted more camping spots in the Custer State Park Wildlife Loop! Nice way to destroy the Wildlife Loope and compete with private business owners, Tiny Tim!

      1. Ok we all know what scorecard you used. Totally biased Shows your biased un fact based comment.

        1. All south dakota scorecards are biased as they cherry pick the votes afterwards.

          You have to announce that it will be a scored vote PRIOR to the vote– like Club fir Griwth and many others do in DC

  2. Does anybody have a member makeup of the “freedom caucus.” Would be good to know.

  3. Here is the list of grievances that would have its credulity tested in court:
    https://plainstribune.com/?service=events.Image&name=electionintegrityissueslist.jpg

    Legally speaking, SD counties and the state proper SHOULD NOT WASTE OUR MONEY FIGHTING THIS.

    Please get to work fixing it.

    Reach-out. I will advocate for you and demand a measured and thoughtful response from the group doing the investigating (and currently being abused by the state in my opinion by withholding public information).

    1. Press Release from SD Canvassing today! We have bloated voter rolls that need to be updated.
      Is it ok that 256 people voted that are over 120 years old????

      1. Dude: That is one of the weakest arguments out there. Many of the voters who are listed at that age is based on a computer issue for the year of birth or a lack of an original registration date. The year of birth is no longer required to register. Perhaps you and the other unemployed people obsessed with this could go knock on those doors of these alleged “ancient” people or talk to their neighbors. Chances are, you’ll find it’s a computer input because that information wasn’t required at one point in time and auditors needed to input data for the database system to work.

        1. Local mayoral elections (for instance) are often won by very few votes, so are key commission (and other) seats. That’s one of many issues with our roles. There are thousands of illegal votes to be had, and we need to fix that. Address all of the issues in the link.

          PURGE THE ROLES NOW OR THERE IS NO INTEGRITY.

          Everyone must REREGISTER.

    2. Has Main Stream media picked up on any of your scoops from your podcast Sibby Online 2.0?

  4. Hard to fix a problem when you don’t know what it is. I bet you can fit this entire group into a phone booth. Pat, you’re giving them too much air time. This is a non-story.

      1. Except one of these people won the SoS nom. I’d say things are a bit more serious than Hubbel tilting at windmills, wouldnt you?

          1. Monae Johnson won the support of 410 convention delegates, more than Larry Rhoden and many more than Marty Jackley.

            How can we drive those 410 libertarian RINOs out of the Republican Party?

            1. A small group, and yes it is small, got their stuff together and filled the delicate positions with people to vote for Monea. It was so smart.

              Went to an event and Monea was handing out and signing people up for the delegate positions. Two people said “I didn’t even understand what I was signing up for.” They got phone calls telling them that their name was on the ballot from friends. They didn’t know that they were running. Didn’t know they had to attend the convention.

              That friends, is organization.

              2. the people who signed up to be Precinct committee men and women didn’t read the job description either.
                It’s a job, a big one, of updating voter lists, making phone calls, going door to door, registering non voters, and working under the direction of the county chairman, which means going to meetings, and may include being asked to do poll watching, participating in fundraising, all that sort of thing.
                Since participating in fundraising goes with the territory, paying their own way to the convention is a part of that.
                Voting at the convention is their reward for doing all that work, and spending all that money. If they didn’t want to do all that work, they should not have signed up.

        2. Do you think the former paper-pushing secretary will do a good job with the experience she has?

  5. As a strong supporter of the State Constitution, let alone the rule of law, and the proper channels being used to investigate public matters, I took another approach to this, while I do believe there is signs of fraud, abuse, election scheming going on across the country, let alone in South Dakota, I believe much of the data being requested by these groups are private information, which law, perhaps the counties are correct, they cannot outwardly share the information, however, I believe the proper means of handling this is by petitioning the legislature, or at least lobbying to get at least two House Reps to place a resolution on the agenda, I have been proposing my concept plan to several of the legislators as of late:

    2023 SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE
    HOUSE RESOLUTION _______

    Introduced by: Citizen Mike Zitterich of Sioux Falls, S.D

    A RESOLUTION, In support of establishing a legislative public investigation into the electoral process of holding state and local elections within the State of South Dakota for the purpose to review and audit Domiciles, the State’s Master Voter Registration Rolls, All Ballots requested and recieved during state and local elections 2016, 2018, 2020, and to ask questions of the Secretary of State, County Auditors, Members of the Election Board, and any Election Worker in order to study, validate, authenticate, to better understand the electoral process of electing state and local officials, to best maintain free, fair, honest, and to expose any fraud, abuse, election schemes that may exist within the State of South Dakota.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of the (_______) Legislature of the State of South Dakota, that efforts be made to conduct an investigation into reviewing and validating all public matters of the electoral voting process concerning domicles, the master voter registration rolls, the validity of all public ballots requested and returned during the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections, as well as to ask questions of the Secretary of State, County Auditors, the Election Boards, and all citizens in order to locate any errors, omissions, any fraud, abuse, while preparing a report of all findings; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, whereas the Federal Government does not seem interested in having this public discussion, We the People of the free State of South Dakota wish for, and desire to hold the Federal Government accountable to the rule of law, and to the constitution; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the House requests support from the South Dakota Senate, from the Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds, and the support of Representative Dusty Johnson; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon a full and complete investigation being conducted, that the House publish such report, making it available to all citizens of the state in both print circulation, as well as on the state website, allowing for all persons of public interest to review all facts thereof.

    —

    In attempting to utilize the Legislative process, ‘we’ then can get a thorough and strong sense of ‘investigative’ action of learning the over all process, what and how the state election board manages the process, and get facts as they relate to several aspects of the electoral process.

    Based on my research, by law, we must fully ensure the people that the DOMICLES, the Master Voter Rolls, and the # of Ballots Requested and Received all line up true.

    The issue here is, as a State, we are seeing a huge influx of “foreign born persons” placing their domiciles here, but what we do not know of, is if they are relinquishing their former domicile in their previous states, which allows them to essentually vote twice, that is what the Secretary of State is there for, to investigate and ensure those domiciles are being fully transferred. “WE” cannot tie our voting rights to “residence” but they can be tied very strictly to “Domicile”.

    In a Supreme Court Case Texas v Florida (cant remember the case #, I can find it) — the court has ruled that SOUTH DAKOTA (Secretary of State) can bring forth “lawsuits” against other states in matters of “controversy”. What greater controversy, but in matters of securing our State and Local Elections.

    This is why I call for the Legislature to place my “resolution” or at least one like it on the 2023 Agenda…

    1. Mike, one of the duties of a precinct committee man or woman outlined in the SDGOP bylaws is “compiling and updating voters lists, contacting voters, registering non-voters…”

      We already have people to check this out, and you’re one of them. You all ought to get busy and do your job.

      3. Not sure which way you want me to respond, but as a “strong supporter” of rule of law, and let alone being an “Informed” and “educated” republic, I want to get out and help people understand the manner of which ‘we’ govern our state. I am willing to hold Town Hall Forums, I am willing to get out and talk to people, I am willing to get out and help get more voters. However, I cannot stop being who I am, I will always post informed dialogues that give the ‘readers’ a sense in all I wish for, and what type of government we have at all times.

    2. Mike Zitterich, you’re kind of like a junior version of Mike Lindell.

      Would that make you the “couch pillow guy?”

    3. Mike, can you tell us how the state constitution would rule on your theory of counting the non-voting residents of a county as a “no” vote on amendment A in 2020? Is there a hidden line we are all missing that invalidates the “majority of votes on the issue is the winner”? Surely, someone who is “a strong supporter of the State Constitution” wouldn’t contradict that front end part of it, right?

      1. Actualy understanding the State Constitution would be your order of event…

        1) You have to understand that “WE” are not a direct democracy, the popular vote does not govern the state, it simply represents the popular opinion of what the people may or may not want to be governed by;

        2) It takes two “attempts” to officially adopt a law into effect, the Legislature must have 2 readings, plus make it through the Judicial Review Process of allowing the PEOPLE to challenge the law either by popular vote, legislative review, or through the Courts, and any law or amendment adopted by popular vote of the voters must also make it passed the Judicial Review Process of which the people as well can challenge the law by a second vote of the people, legislature review, or through the Courts. NO LAW can go into effect without ALL “Citizens” Consenting to be “governed” as such, and if NO ONE challenges such law by June 30th – All “People” passively have consented to be governed as such. This is a “protected right” placed in our constitution, it is what protects us from the “Mob Rule Mentality” of the Popular Vote.

        Our very “First Bill of Right” as a South Dakota Citizen” says:

        “Inherent rights. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

        Notice it says “Consent of the Governed” – that is to imply that ALL CITIZENS making up the “State” as the State is the PEOPLE ( not government ) – have the final say on all things of “Public Matters”

        2) As for Amendment A – while yes, the 420,000 voters who voted in the 2020 November Election adopted the amendment by obtaining 227,000 Yes Votes to 193,000 No Votes, whereas the “law” could not go into effect until July 1st of 2021 due to the fact the “PEOPLE” had the right to challenge such law by means of a ‘second vote through referrendum’, or by Legislative Review, or done so by presenting a case in the S.D Courts.

        –> Based on the fact that 70% of the Counties collectively voted NO on Amendment A showing that such a large group of people did not support to be governed as such, if I recall, Minnehaha County voted in favor of it, while Pennington County actually voted against Amendment A, the County Sheriff has the obligation as an elected official of representing the laws and codes within the “County, which allowed him as both a citizen and as an elected official to bring suit against Amendment A to the Court room, which he was able to present and win his case, which set up the case to be heard in the Supreme Court, where obviously, it was written in such a bad manner, that based on style and form, it was easily struck down.

        3) Another example was IM26 – or Medical Marijuana, it was adopted on November 2020, but could not go into effect until July 1st for the very same reason, the PEOPLE had the Judicial Review Process of challenging such law in the legisature, by public vote, or again, through the courts. Because no one challenged it or at least could not get enough signatures by June 30th, the law went into effect, setting up the process of which instructed the Legislature and the County and City Councils to put in place “rules, codes, and regulations as such to govern the activity, all of which the process was slowed down further cause it required public input, which allows the PEOPLE to challenge such rules and codes, demanding that the legisature, counties, and cities ‘change’ the rules or modify them. Based on how many times the rules get challenged, determines the speed of which the law will lawfully go into effect…

        People were upset at the process, claiming it took to long, but what they forget, is there is a process that must play out in order to protect the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE of the State, allowing them to play their part in the law making process. By November 1st 2021 – the Medical Marijuana Law was “Fully” in effect, while Amendment A was struck down by the courts based on technicalities of the measure.

        Two Examples of how a law goes into effect, and why the popular vote does NOT fully determine a law adopted or not.

        SO next time you go to the polls to vote, which you will do concerning Medicaid Expansion this year, remember the popular vote is NOT the tell all of what the PEOPLE want, or do not want, its only a public opinion of the voters – you want to anaylize that vote onthe Secretary of State website where they present all the results – Popular Vote, County Vote, Precinct Vote – and yes, those results do “SHOW” you what the over all viewpoint of the people are, and it tells you where the votes come from and where they do not come from.

        IF in 40 of the 65 counties collectively voted NO – that tells you a large majority fo the Citizens DO NOT like the law, and it most likely gets challenged. The governor has to represent ALL THE PEOPLE cause she is the AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVE, while each of the Legislators represent the very voting districts who voted no, all that combined gives them legal standing, let alone any “CITIZEN” can bring forth a challenge themselves.

        Understanding “CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE” – allows you to understand how we govern the state.

      2. As for Non-Voting Residents, “WE” cannot adopt any such law that burdens a “American” to “residency status”. What is clearly accepted is determining the “DOMICLE” of any such American who chooses to submit himself and his property inside the “state”. And there are two such Supreme Court Cases that back me up:

        In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) – the court ruled against the Tennessee law that required a newly placed resident of the state to establish 1 year, 3 month residency prior to a state or local election. What the court actually stated was the fact: What the court says here is that “WE” cannot set residency requirements on any American based on where he is residing in the present time, only his DOMICILE is important – so South Dakota allows for any American a minimum of 24 hours of residency, while also going thru the process making South Dakota his official home (domicile).

        An American can claim South Dakota as his DOMICILE, but he has the right travel and reside in other “States” – RV’rs are doing this today, they do not have one state of which they reside, they are constantly moving around the country, however they choose to establish their DOMICLE in SOuth Dakota based on our tax laws, voting laws, low car insurance, etc-etc. South Dakota is the place of which they want ALL their Commercial and Private Activity to pass through. “WE” also have low Sales Tax Rates, so they can avoid sales tax in other states, while reporting al their transactions to S.D paying our 6.5A% Sales Tax.

        My Landlord does this – he has his DOMICILE in SOuth Dakota, but resides in Arizona 9 of the 12 months, he lawfully can vote in SOUTH DAKOTA despite not being in South Dakota.

        My dad who retired – lives and resides in his RV 9 of the 12 months, he never changed his Domicile, he can legally vote in South Dakota, which he does so by Absentee Ballot due to the fact he is outside his district on Election Day, so long as he legally requests a ballot, and legally returns that ballot prior to, or on Election Day.

    4. LOL, this guy. BLA BLA BLA, SUPREME COURT CASE OF…. Damn, whats the case #?? errr, uh, I can look it up. Very convincing.

  6. Is this the same group that sent FOIA requests to every county asking for every piece of information under the sun involving voting? Almost all of which isn’t public information.

Comments are closed.