I’m finally back at my home base after a fun day in Pierre yesterday. (Yes, you can have fun in Pierre). I was taking some time to go through my Google Alerts, and noted the column written by the former US Term Limits guy defending poor Annette Bosworth from the harsh government action being taken by the state of South Dakota:
Now, for her trouble, she faces jail, fines, and the destruction of her career.
“This is not Jacklanistan,” Mr. Stranahan fumes about AG Jackley’s persecution of Bosworth. “This is South Dakota. This is America. And what’s going on up here is simply wrong.”
“The reasonable thing to do in the Bosworth case would seem to be a misdemeanor charge with a penalty and no felony charges,” Howie reasonably suggests. “That would be a win-win situation. Bosworth accepts a reasonable consequence and the integrity of the election process is preserved.”
Howie also notes that Marty Jackley wants to run for governor, and that his bizarre prosecution of Dr. Bosworth might not make much sense to future voters.
I’m not sure whether this article citing former S&M porn guy Lee Stranahan and indy Senate candidate Gordon Howie was to be taken in a humorous vein, or if it was serious. Unfortunately for the Town Hall column, the Howie piece illustrated Howie’s own ignorance by claiming that the Attorney General collects petition signatures. Which he doesn’t – it’s chosen by convention.
But even worse, the column ignores the corruption that Howie’s column is not only suggesting, but flat out requesting – The article heavily relied on Gordon Howie’s hit piece against Jackley where Howie bizarrely suggests Jackley selectively not prosecute to curry favor with voters.
So, according to the the original Howie article and the Town Hall article it cites, prosecuting based on a indictment handed down by a grand jury is bad. Selectively refusing to prosecute to curry favor with voters is good.
If that’s the type of America that Paul Jacobs is seeking, we’re all in a lot of trouble.
Shame on Townhall. Boz and her husband are getting away with far more than they are getting charged with. I’d think there is some feeling that she gets the book thrown at her for this considering she’s not being charged with things like six digit raffle scams and much more.
When will the good Rev. Hickey, lord protector of all that is electorally good in SD, go after Corey Heildeberger for voting in SD elections while not a resident of SD?
Shame on Townhall? Shame on Rev. Hickey for his selective outrages.
Silliness. His wife was a student out of state doing an internship. No different than my daughter living in KY and voting here last year.
The reasons for my Boz petition challenge were made clear at that time. Blatant violations from a scandal ridden US Senate candidate and no one was saying anything here in the GOP circles.
Look at the law: An absence of 2 years, and working out-of-state for those two years, is sufficient to establish residency out of state. While his WIFE may qualify as a student with residency remaining in SD, her husband does not! In other words, his wife’s SD residency status has NOTHING to do with his.
Secondly, the submission of an absentee ballot requires an affirmation that he is a resident of SD.
Lastly, we see that he’s left WA for another state that is not SD!
Abiding by our laws is not “silliness”-it’s an imperative even for our friends as well as our enemies.
Where’s your outrage? Where’s your lawsuit?
Where’s your name?
Maybe you should ask him the particulars and I’m sure he’ll explain to you. As for me, a seminary internship and final semester at the school is standard and it’s their choice where they want to vote and claim residency. And he wasn’t running for anything and I have no knowledge he even voted. If you are so beefed by it you should do what I did and push it legally.
these u-s term limit associates don’t mind letting their big mouths take the lead before they take a good look at the parties involved. it’s a pattern.
Steve,
Two comments:
1) “. . . no one was saying anything here in the GOP circles” is untrue. A lot of people in “GOP circles” talked about it. Some think she as given more attention than she deserved.
2) Just because they didn’t support your challenge (which I did as well as that of Cory) doesn’t mean they didn’t think her actions were wrong. They just decided in their prudential judgment she was not going anywhere and they didn’t want to make her a martyr. In retrospect, that is a reasonable position considering it appears she only uses the persecution and prosecution to further her own pocketbook.
You aren’t the only one who wants to do the “right thing” but not everyone agrees with you on what is the “right thing” to do. Personally, I’m rethinking the attention she got because it has made her a “cause celeb” which she continues to use generate money from possibly unsuspecting people.
Troy, please provide a link of where anyone in the GOP during that period of time was making noise about the Boz signature violations. It was awful quiet though maybe privately some voiced objections. Perhaps the primary climate contributed to this as no particular campaign wanted to be viewed as taking out Boz or wasting time on someone who couldn’t gets votes. It’s also partially attributable to the shwing factor which is a term I coined for GOPrs who like and only throw softballs at pretty candidates.
My recollection is the SOS wouldn’t rule, the AG wouldn’t either, the GOP stayed out of the matter, so did every campaign, and so did DWC, entirely and for too long.
Steve –
I seem to recall several times I wrote articles that didn’t reflect positively on Bosworth. And I wrote articles that did. The point is, I wasn’t on a crusade against her. I don’t consider writing with the goal of personally ending their campaign to be journalism. I’m interested in telling the tale, not serving as the subject of it.
Regarding your other concerns, the AG typically isn’t going to comment on ongoing investigations, and is even more strictly barred by existing case law which strongly limits his ability to take action against candidates up for election. As for the party, yes, the GOP is going to stay out of picking and choosing favorites in a primary.
Steve,
Are you serious? You really are asserting that people were quiet because she is pretty? This is the red herring “Appeal to motive” where you attribute to those who disagree with impure motives. Pretty (pun intended) broad brush against everyone in “GOP circles.”
I was one who supported your effort as well as Cory’s because her violations exposed weakness in the laws surrounding this. Krebs is dealing with this and you will get to deal with it as a Legislator. But, you and I were in the minority that thiss should be discussed during the campaign. Those on the other side weren’t having press releases during the primary for these reasons:
1) The law had weaknesses so nothing practical was going to happen. She was going to be on the ballot as both you and Cory found out.
2) They felt giving her press only fed her egomania. And, in retrospect, also fed her ability to raise money.
Your assertion that silence is at an act of condoning or dereliction is a red herring (argument from silence). All you could have said (and should have is) you felt that your challenge was in your mind an effort worth taking. And, since you were unsuccessful because the existing law hadn’t contemplated these violations, you are going to be working to make them better. You didn’t have to denigrate those who weren’t rallying around your challenge.
Yes I’m very serious about the schwing factor. Top ten lists of who’s hot in congress come out every year. It’s a factor and a reality. And it’s here even on war college at times. During the short period of time I stepped forward into the US house race in 2010 I had some GOP support but when Noem also jumped in those friends told me it’s now a beauty contest and I can’t compete. GOP politicos told me it’ll take a skirt to beat Sandlin. Those are quotes. I immediately supported Noem 1000%. It’s okay as women are still underpaid and under appreciated but I don’t think there is any denying there was some kid glove treatment here of Boz based on her looks. It’s both parties. We talk about hairstyles and glamour campaign pics. Looks matter. I was told to shave my beard because older women in focus groups don’t trust men hiding behind something. Apparently Jesus is the exception to that, even so I kept the hair. I’m not saying the schwing factor was a leading factor but it was a factor. Maybe you are right and I’m raising a red herring. It might also be a little elephant in the room.
Not sure I would be brazen enough to use “schwing factor” and “raising a red herring” in two consecutive sentences and still keep a straight face, Pastor, but maybe that’s just the artist in me …thinking too hard.
…ahem… all righty then…Carry on gentlemen. 😉
Anonymous 9:51,
South Dakota law is clear with regards to establishing voting residency. Once one has established voting residency and one registers, they are under no obligation to change their voting registration if they move from South Dakota. They just can’t be registered to vote in two states.*
There are a lot of reasons for this:
1) They retain a financial interest in South Dakota and thus choose to exercise their right to vote here.
2) They intend to return to South Dakota
3) They retain a personal political interest in either their hometown and state. I know a person who left the state 30 years ago and doesn’t ever expect to live here again (family reasons) but still votes here because this is where he intends to be buried.
* I don’t know if registration in another state (under SD law) requires them to affirmatively take them off the rolls in SD, prevents them from legally voting, or gives them the option to vote in either state (but can only do so once).