Attention seeking narcissist Lora Hubbel is back trying to get attention today with a pro se lawsuit seeking to be named to the ballot as a candidate for the Constitution party, according to KELOland News:
Lora Hubbel and G. Matt Johnson want their names on the November Ballot. This week, they filed a federal lawsuit claiming South Dakota’s Republican Party has meddled in the process.
The complaint says the Constitution party’s conventions were riddled with disruptions and threats. Court papers also refer to stolen files and repeated confusion over the identity of the party’s chair.
“Repeated confusion” I would probably concur there’s been a lot of repeated confusion. But it remains to be seen if it should earn the Lora faction of the Constitution Party yet another bite at the apple. There’s a lot of supposition on Lora’s part that she has a legitimate claim to being Constitution Party Chair, which the Circuit Court had no ability to figure out. But there’s a glaring error in the document filing:
Lora makes the claim that “Ballots will be printed on September 21, 2018.” Um… not really. Once again, Lora just couldn’t focus enough to be bothered with details.
If I was to venture a guess, they’ve been ordered and are being printed, right now. Despite what Lora claims, Absentee voting, not ballot printing, begins September 21, 2018.
But don’t just take my word for it:
According to the Secretary of State, we’ve passed the certification deadline, and are coming up on the deadline now to have them in the hands of County Auditors. So they’re being printed NOW. Kind of important, if your first point is to get your hearing done before the ballots are being printed.
The Constitution Party already had its bite at the apple in state court. The Hubble contingent probably should have bothered to show up for the circuit court hearing held earlier this month instead of filing this self-represented mess in Federal Court.
But, good luck with that.
Toxic person.
Yeah, you’d think the state Republican Party could find a chair who isn’t a notorious legal bully, clogging up the courts, ripping off the voters, and punishing political opponents with hypertechnical enforcement of the ludicrous ballot-access restrictions his own party writes.
It’s not “clogging up the courts” if you win. And it’s not “hypertechnical enforcement” to ask that a political party be organized in a coherent manner before nominating a candidate.
Did you read the legal complaint? Other than the LaFleur-Stacey faction, over which they obviously had very little control, how would you propose the rest of the party could have been organized in a more coherent manner?
You’d probably say forcing a bunch of Democrats waste a boatload of time and money driving across the state for an utterly pointless ten-minute reconvention was a worthwhile use of the justice system too, because Lederman “won”…
The secretary of state and the attorney general are basically commonsense individuals who reasonably honor good-faith efforts to comply with the technicalities of the law. Dan Lederman is a bully.
Show us on the doll where Dan hurt you.
You argue the law should not be followed….and criticize the person that says it should.
Ridiculous!
I’m not arguing that the law shouldn’t be followed. I’m arguing that people who are doing their best to follow the law shouldn’t be punished, and I’m arguing that selective, hypertechnical enforcement of the law is violating the rights of non-Republicans.
“ludicrous ballot-access restrictions”-you mean the law? You sound like Democrats on immigration.
Sure, if you see an analogy between non-Republicans and illegal aliens, as many arrogant Republicans in this state obviously do.
Pro Se? Good luck with that one! Some people don’t have the grace to bow out when the time comes, and Hubbel is one of those people.
Never has the saying “He who represents himself has a fool for a client” seemed more appropriate.
There is so much wrong with that filing there isn’t enough internet to begin listing it all
Can’t she just join the Democrats and leave rational people in peace?
they already have enough people able to screw everything up thanks.
did she get an attorney to file this for her? and if so, who?
Nope. thats what “pro se” means,
So the filing says the Constitution Party will cease to exist if they don’t have a statewide candidate on the ballot this fall but everybody knows Lora will be a Republican again by January whether the CP continues to exist or not.
If she wanted the CP to be sustained she shouldn’t have resigned her chairmanship in 2017.
Nearly every commenter on this blog talks like the Constitution Party of South Dakota begins and ends with Lora Hubbel. What about Matt Johnson and the rest of the party’s six nominees? More to the point, what about the 12,600 South Dakotans who supported the Constitution Party’s candidate for public utilities commissioner in 2014?
Even if Lora were the incarnation of evil she’s portrayed as here, that wouldn’t justify depriving every voter in South Dakota of the freedom to support Constitutionist candidates.
No one is being deprived of anything…heck they are being saved from wasting their vote on these candidates who HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING, NO MESSAGE AND NO PURPOSE FOR RUNNING EXCEPT THEIR OWN EGOS…good riddance!
The Constitution Party has a clear message, and every voter in South Dakota is being deprived of the freedom to support it.
A clear message of clown car drivers doing whatever?
Here’s the national platform:
https://www.constitutionparty.com/assets/2016-2020_National_Platform.pdf
The CP elected Lora Hubbel to be their chairwoman in 2016 or so, right? That was their first mistake and they have nobody to blame but themselves for that. She dropped them in 2017 to become a Republican again. Whose fault is it when she does it again?
Electing Lora chair in 2016 wasn’t a mistake, and there’s no inherent “fault” in changing parties.
“Electing Lora chair in 2016 wasn’t a mistake.”…. said no one ever.?
Or was it “Electing Lora chair in 2016 wasn’t a mistake,” because we wanted to appeal to more people who were unmoored from the shackles of reality.
Or wait.,, “Electing Lora chair in 2016 wasn’t a mistake,” because the Constitution Party needs more anti-vaxxer nutballs to build the base.
I’m here all night, folks.
Show us on the doll where Lora hurt you.
So electing a captain who jumped ship and left it adrift for over a year and then returned, attempted to regain command, and crashed it on the rocks wasn’t a mistake?
The craziest thing is any notion that she isn’t going to do it all over again. As soon as the Lincoln Day dinners are scheduled she will be a Republican again. It’s what she does. She doesn’t care about the Constitution Party or any of the voters. This is all about herself.
Do you care about the Constitution Party and its voters? Do you think Dan Lederman does? Because I get the vibe that many of you can’t see anything past your petty partisanship.
As I said above, nearly every commenter on this blog talks like the Constitution Party of South Dakota begins and ends with Lora Hubbel. What about Matt Johnson and the rest of the party’s six nominees? More to the point, what about the 12,600 South Dakotans who supported the Constitution Party’s candidate for public utilities commissioner in 2014?
Lora had good reasons for resigning in 2017, and she didn’t attempt to regain command this year. She agreed to file the emergency convention notice at the party’s request during a brief period of uncertainty regarding who was the legal chair. Then she voluntarily stepped aside and agreed to serve as party secretary.
The secretary of state, acting on the advice of the attorney general, was prepared to place the party’s nominees on the ballot, but Dan Lederman sued her to prevent her from doing so. I’m not sure how you’re claiming Lora crashed the party onto the rocks. What control did she supposedly have over the situation?
If Republicans didn’t like having Lora at your precious Lincoln Day dinners, that should have been your own problem. Destroying years of other people’s work because of your bizarre personal vendetta against her isn’t a morally justified response.
Lora had good reasons for resigning in 2017? Really? If they were such good reasons why did she return? And are they the same reasons she will resign again in 2019?
Lora returned to the Constitution Party mainly because the person who’d driven her out of it in 2017 recruited her aggressively and persistently to seek its nomination for governor this year. That person has since left the party herself and therefore probably won’t drive Lora out again in 2019.
On July 13, Lora agreed to file the emergency convention notice at the party’s request during a brief period of uncertainty regarding who was the legal chair. She never agreed to return to the chair permanently. She isn’t the current chair and doesn’t claim to be.
so Lora’s not going to leave the CP again?
Really?
You promise?
That isn’t what I said.
What Lora does is generally none of my business.
I’m not an authoritarian control-freak Republican.
While all this sounds…. made up, it doesn’t matter. Please keep her
I’m not a member of the Constitution Party.
Again with the 2014? Stop livin” in the past, man!
Other than the party’s 2016 presidential electors, judges have denied ballot access to all of its nominees since 2014.
In 2016, the federal judge did so based on Republican-passed ballot-access restrictions that were struck down as unconstitutional later in the same lawsuit.
The 12,000 people who voted for a CP candidate in 2014 and the 500 registered members have had plenty of time to get organized into a coherent party.
Lori Stacey drove Lora out in 2017 then begged her to return in 2018 to save the CP from Terry LaFleur?
Isn’t it Lora’s fault they don’t have a statewide candidate on the ballot? Isn’t it her fault LaFleur isn’t on the ballot? Isn’t she the one who has prevented the voters of SD the opportunity to vote for an alternative?
The answer to all these questions is YES
no one noticed an issue for a year and a half…says a lot
Party members noticed plenty of issues. They just didn’t know about any that would cause the secretary of state to question Lori Stacey’s status as the legal chair. How would you say they should have known about them?
LaFleur isn’t on the ballot because he and two other party members tried to nominate him at their own separate so-called convention.
If Lora Hubbel had the power to deprive thousands of South Dakotans of the freedom to vote for Constitution Party candidates, wouldn’t that suggest a problem in the legal system? And in any case, how would you say it’s Lora’s fault that the party’s six nominees have been denied ballot access?
The way the rest of us heard it, Lora showed up at the July convention, not to assist anybody, but to get herself the nomination for governor. If she had just shown up to assist with the election of slates of officers and nominees, with Terry LaFleur as the nominee for governor, it probably would have ended quietly and the SOS would have put them on the ballot. But she didn’t do that, she single handedly blew the CP up. And now she blames Dan Lederman.
The way the rest of you heard it … from this blog?
First off, nearly the entire party agreed that Lora Hubbel would be a better candidate for governor than Terry LaFleur. They actively recruited her to run against him and probably would have nominated someone else to do so if she hadn’t.
Lederman’s lawyers explicitly—and correctly—argued in court that the August 14 convention notice Lori Stacey attempted to file on July 15 (a Sunday) was invalid because Stacey wasn’t the legal chair and hadn’t filed it on the party’s behalf. The problem the party was facing on July 13 was that fake chair Stacey had filed the notice for the supposed convention they’d been planning to hold on July 14.
In other words, they needed to take precautions against the very conclusion Lederman’s lawyers eventually asserted, specifically that a convention notice filed by Stacey was invalid.
During that brief period of uncertainty on July 13, while working with the secretary of state’s office to determine the legal chair, Lora Hubbel agreed to file the emergency August 14 convention notice as chair pro tem at the party’s request. Then she voluntarily stepped aside and agreed to serve as party secretary.
And trust me, Lora is far from the only one who blames Dan Lederman for the obliteration of the Constitution Party.
Glorious!
“Nearly the entire party agreed that Lora Hubbel would be a better candidate for governor than Terry LaFleur.”
And THAT, folks, is what’s wrong with the Constitution Party!
A tin-foil hat lunatic who thinks putting babies to sleep on their backs is intended to flatten their skulls and make them more susceptible to government mind control, who believed that her home was being targeted with toxic chemicals from condensation trails left by aircraft, who worried that doggie microchips were covertly transmitting information about the dogs’ owners, who thinks vaccines are all a government plot to do….something, a person that seriously delusional would be a better candidate than somebody else? ANYBODY else?
My old dog would be a better candidate for governor!
LaFleur is worse, and the incessant smearing of the Constitution Party had effectively driven away most of its other options.
Dan moved to SD and has stayed a Republican. he doesn’t switch his affiliation every three months. he hasn’t resigned from his chair to join another party or race. so you can try to make it about him to divert attention away from these facts. the CP hasn’t published any meeting minutes for the year prior to the first convention. lora didn’t meet the 60 day CP party requirement to be chair or a candidate for the CP. no 30 day notice was ever given as state business by the sos cannot be done on Sunday by law. I think the CP members should take some pride in their party and not let it be ruined by facebook warriors who don’t seem to give a damn about it. I think lora should be brought up on charges for filling false legal instruments, and be sued for slandering Dan.
I am not the original poster…but I think they were referring to by laws which say convention has to be within 60 days of the primary.
What is the status of this case?