So a postcard is landing in mailboxes across District 35 noting Senate Candidate Kevin Quick’s qualifications for office. Or would it be disqualifications?:
We know all about his criminal record in South Dakota, as I pointed out here. Not to mention that he was the Pennington County Sheriff Office’s most wanted in May of 2017.
But the passage from the State Constitution… that’s a new wrinkle. From Article 3, Section 4 of the South Dakota Constitution:
§ 4. Disqualification for conviction of crime–Defaults on public money. No person who has been, or hereafter shall be, convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime, nor any person who has been, or may be collector or holder of public moneys, who shall not have accounted for and paid over, according to law, all such moneys due from him, shall be eligible to the Legislature or to any office in either branch thereof.
So, what would be considered an infamous crime under the constitution? They kind if left it open ended. Clearly he’s pled guilty to felony possession of drugs and was sentenced to 4 years in the state pen, suspended. And the sentence was later modified where he was given suspended imposition of sentence.
Does a suspended imposition of sentence erase the conviction along with the sentence, and give him eligibility, or just the sentence, meaning Kevin Quick could not be seated for office, if people of his District decided they wanted someone with his qualifications sent to Pierre?
Interesting question. And one that hopefully the GOP voters in District 35 have no interest in exploring.
What I find interesting, as well as alarming, are all the primaries Deb Peters is attampting to influence. Or is it her employer an/or Tim Rave who are attempting to influence them? Clearly, two former South Dakota legislative leaders, neither vested with current legislative authority, are still trying to throw their weight around. I find that as slimely as a former legislator going to work as a lobbyist – and even more slimey when the legislator doesn’t provide her or his name as the person behind the ad.
If the information is true and correct, which it is, I don’t have a problem with it. Not sure informing the public that a candidate for office has pleaded guilty to a felony is “throwing their weight around,” but man, there is no telling who will try to turn themselves into a victim anymore.
what about comments on websites
Is Stace back in town?
Ironic comment from someone listed as “anon” to “attampt” (attempt) to call out anyone they feel is influencing a primary anonymously. Could it be you are a proponent of a felony criminal serving in the legislature? I wonder why? Voters should know with full disclosure who’s on their ballot for the primary without fear- or do you feel voters won’t make the “right” (ie. your choice) without forceful coercion. This blog is a probably the best representation of Republicans not being “slimey,” (slimy) that I’ve ever seen. Drain the swamp. Call out the hypocrites. Thomas Jefferson (for all of his amazing accomplishments weighed against his admitted faults) would be ashamed of you.
Pat,
All I can say is “ruh ro raggy”
But seriously, (kind of) I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of the above portion of the state constitution ever being used to prevent a winning candidate from taking office. That said, lets be honest, it ain’t gonna happen here so…..good discussion but does this guy really have a chance? (I’ll answer that – No.) But give the poor sap a C+ for effort.