Secretary of State receives 2nd petition challenge (18% ballot question)
Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that a challenge was submitted February 3rd on the initiated amendment to the South Dakota constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans (18%).
The Secretary of State’s office will verify the petition challenge in the coming months. There is not a deadline in state statute as to when the verification process must be completed.
The challenge was submitted by Cory Heidelberger of Aberdeen.
For more information regarding the challenge process please visit: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-ballot-questions.aspx
#30#
Related to this, Heidelberger has something resembling an affadavit, posted on his website, where he demands the Secretary of State de-certify the petition… without really noting the number of signatures involved, and how that would place the overall submission of signatures in a deficit.
It’s a little hysterical and screechy, which would lead me to lean towards it not amounting to a hill of beans.
Cory is your worst nightmare. He makes Crony Republicans very nervous 🙂
My worst nightmare would be Cory supporting the same candidate I am. That means that either I need to have my head examined, or they are going to go down in flames.
Ooooohhhh, he has so much power! We’re all shaking in our boots about him. The nightmare is that anyone takes him seriously.
Go Cory, I bet Mike Rounds likes you.
I concur-Go, Cory; perhaps to France or Italy where their type of all-controlling government would make you squeal with delight!
Was the affidavit submitted in crayon? That’s about all the legal analysis contained within it justifies. Just another “hey, look at me” from Corey.
That’s kind of what I thought. The affidavit does not seem based in reality.
(God, am I going to waste time on this stupidity?)
As long as I’ve been kicking around, since the late 1980’s, I can’t recall a time when the State Supreme Court has ever halted a ballot measure over goofy crap like a circulator’s address. Almost without exception, if a question over the petitions comes up, they always look at the number of people who sign and defer towards letting the will of the people who signed it prevail.
Nothing really goes after the crux of the matter, which is the number of valid signatures, and it fails to prove there are sufficient numbers of signatures invalid to invalidate the certification.
The affidavit wastes everyone’s time with hot air, posturing, and puffery. It has nothing to do with shortcomings, deficiencies, or shortfalls on the signatures of the people who signed the petitions. And I suspect Cory knows it, because he’s avoiding it, and spending most of his effort chasing after the notaries.
Why isn’t he trying to say there’s an insufficient number of valid signatures? Because that may be a nigh impossible thing in this instance given that they had a record smashing number of people who signed.
Unless someone can prove there’s actually fewer than 27,741 valid signatures out of the 60,287 signatures submitted, this is just an exercise in silliness, and that dog just ain’t going to hunt if it ends up in a court of law.
The people who notarized the petitions reside in the loan offices? That’s really pretty funny.
Dakota War College was effectively part of the Boswell defence team until the indictments came. We couldn’t get DWC to publish her scams and crimes or comment critically on them until reality was evident statewide. Up till that point it was just pretty Annette, cheerleader stuff.
DWC is taking the same course here, only the high crimes are far worse. DWC has a longer political memory than I, but I’ve asked around, consensus is we had the slimiest petition drive in SD history last summer; Rod Aycox, a mafia-connected billionaire loan shark from Atlanta spends two million to insert lasting protections for himself on our state Constitution bussing in illegal signature collectors by the dozens and sabotaging a local businessman in Sioux Falls.
Crickets here at DWC.
No, worse than crickets, praise for this type of thing. We think Lederman set up an interview with you and Lisa Furlong and basically you came away telling us she is a mom who needed an emergency loan once. Baloney. No questions like who wrote the extremely complex 18% measure or who are you a tool for? Well, the Campaign Finance Disclosure came out and it’s in black and white that she is a tool for Rod Aycox and it is crickets again.
Actually, instead we get multiple stories are the sad finances of the SDDP. My notice to DWC is that the way forward in SD politics is not teenage girl nastiness towards each other. There are plenty in the state who lament the disparagement between the parties here; all power and dollars producing corruption headlines on one side, and no chance for the other side to balance it out and keep it in check.
But back on point. There are a number of Republicans who are glad to see the 18 fake cap petitions get challenged. Heidelberger needs to be given an award by someone for citizen activism against corruption. It would take tens of thousands to challenge the petitions professionally but who has that money. Cory has succeeded in getting the SOS to look this over more carefully and SD is better served considering the offence to our process and public Lisa Furlong put us through last summer.
Simple question… how much if any of the 2+million Rod Aycox spent in SD went to DWC or your campaign company? At least assure us, they haven’t hired you too.
Steve, it’s still early in the morning in South Dakota. You probably want to turn your self-righteousness down several volume settings.
–Heidelberger needs to be given an award by someone for citizen activism against corruption.
I’m sure Kory would be happy to fund and present that award.
It may be a bit awkward for Kory to accept the award though with Rev. Hickey’s lips attached to his arse.
Steve, I am speechless after reading your post. I would welcome you to truly be honest with yourself and the voters of what ever district you move back to (if you come back) and run as a Democrat. Truly.
When I first ran in 2010 I sent a mailer to all in my district saying I wasn’t beholden to either party. In that I was a success. The Repub party fit best my social and fiscal conservatism. As time went on, it was evident to me, Repubs were poorly and unethically stewarding their supermajority, not just the corruption but the alliance with cronies in commerce, legislation strong-arming, the selective application of fiscal conservatism and free-market in corporate and farm welfare, etc, etc. And frankly the party boys here are miserable, more about subtraction than addition. The way forward isn’t the hyper-partisanship on this blog. We need leaders in SD who cut through all the fences and bring people together on things that make life better, starting for those (our neighbour’s) who struggle the most – indians and the poor. No way would I run as a democrat. They dislike me as much as you do and from their vantage point also I vote wrong half the time.
Steve, all I’ve ever heard about you is that you’re a democrat who hates abortion and butt sex. And we need to start doomsday preppin.’ Otherwise, your views fit right in with them.
I haven’t read anything from you to give me a different opinion.
I didn’t say I dislike you Steve. I just think you need to check your emotions and truly search your political tendencies. You will find the majority of your issues and passions are liberal. You certainly would want to be most effective when and if you run again for the good of your constituents and certainly not just run for a personal agenda. Being a democrat you could change SD. Correct?
Let’s assume all substantial assertions by Cory are true on their face (courts and juries make a final determination): a number of the circulators violated either election law and/or notary law. What is the possible remedies:
1) The improperly certified/notarized petitions are thrown out by the Secretary of State: This may initially be a call of the Secretary of State (or the AG) but will ultimately be a decision of the Supreme Court. Historically, they have basically decided voter’s will (petition or candidate on ballot prevails) and generally do not disqualify signatures. They instead concentrate their authority and exercise of remedies against the wrong-doer (circulator).
2) The Secretary of State does a more detailed (non-sample based) “audit” of signatures starting with petitions not questioned. If it gets to the minimum number, they reject the request for decertification. If it does not get to the minimum, they then verify signatures on the “questioned” petitions and stop counting and ask the Supreme Court to decide if it should be on the ballot or not.
3) The Secretary of State investigates and determines the violations are immaterial or unfounded and rejects the request for decertification.
4) The Secretary of State determines these are violations worthy of prosecution and refers the matter to the AG. This is a separate issue to #1 and #2.
Troy: Making an effort to see whether one or more of the four possible remedies that you list are needed can hardly be called a waste of time. Pat, what are you afraid of? Why wouldn’t you want the substantial questions that Cory has raised investigated to protect the integrity of the election process in South Dakota?
While I share the view that Kooky Kory is wasting his time with the legal challenge, it is heartening to note that Kooky Kory spent endless hours perusing 1000s of signature sheets for names and addresses and circulators and notaries, and hundreds of additional hours comparing “penmanship” and doing on-line “research”. Then he spent another 5 minutes composing his petition challenge.
Which is to say that those hundreds of hours Kooky Kory spent on this trivial matter were not spent terrorizing and inculcating the youth of SD.
In that we can all thank God.
Now, if we can only get him to shave off that creepy-old-guy-harasser beard.
Anonymous 3:03,
Everybody is entitled to spend their time as they want. But that willingness or admiration of such an effort doesn’t make Hicket’s histrionics rational. He is becoming paranoid and a conspiracy nut.
Troy if Pat has received money from this group then any and all postings from him regarding this issue are irrelevant and hypocritical….
Bret,
First, do you similarly ask the same thing of Cory on who supports his blog or Hillary Clinton?
Second, Pat has been notably critical of one of his advertisers in the IM17 legislation.
Third, how about addressing his points or the merits of Cory’s effort? Otherwise, the charge is textbook logic fallacy ad hominem negative attack.