South Dakota Suspicions

The National Review ^ | 11-07-02 | Byron York

[KC Burke]

ImpBill,
Would you please post the statute above at post #98 to the SD page?

[KC Burke]

From the rules of the Senate:

Credentials Dealt With by the Congress to Which Elected:

It is not the practice of the Senate to consider questions arising upon the credentials of a Senator-elect for a term commencing in a succeeding Congress; likewise, it is not the policy of the Senate in the closing session of one Congress, to consider in advance the right or claim of a person to a seat in the Senate for a term commencing in the succeding Congress.

This issue was settled in 1927 by the 69th Congress.

Now, the way I see it is that Thune, in his three day period, or three citizens from each of the precincts involved, in their respective ten day period, can bring action in SD to prevent this travesty.

Your reliance on the Senate, or a claim by an SD citizen (what's he going to do (?) sue the next Congress not yet seated?) is a waste of brain power.

The battle ground is laid in the law and rules, if we but follow them. Casting all the law, rules and history aside and laying claim to some metaphysical one line reading of the Constitution is futile.

[hchutch]

Again, you are mistaking what I have said. I never said that this should be dealt with in the lame-duck session. I said that the new Senate should conditionally seat Johnson pending the results of the FBI investigation.

The race for the seat that will be filled in the 108th Congress is at issue. According to Article I, Sectiuon 5, the Senate is the final arbiter of whether it is okay or not. Congressman Billybob once mentioned that the House seated a Democrat in 1985 over a disputed election where Indiana said the Republican had won (Panetta was involved, I think).

All that has to happen on day one of the first session of the new Congress is for the Senate to seat Johnson conditionally pending the results of the vote fraud investigation being conducted by DOJ and the FBI.

Why do I favor this approach?

1. I believe fraud DID affect this election.

2. I believe the Dems set it up so that any investigation of vote fraud would allow them to engage in serious race-baiting in South Dakota, Louisiana (got that runoff, and there is concern abotu the black turnout), and across the country.

3. The FBI has been investigating since October - BEFORE the election occured. It's going tobe VERY hard to accuse them of bias one way or the other.

4. If it come to the RNC, DNC, or FBI, the average person is going to most likely believe the FBI. I do not want this to be an RNC vs. DNC thing. I want this to be FBI vs. DNC.

The Dems in South Dakota are, IMHO, clearly hiding something. Apparently a vote-fraud scheme. But we need to prove it. Unfortunately, Thune and his campaign won't be as believeable as an "unbiased" source. We've got the FBI already looking into it. Handle this smart, and right, not quick and aggressive, and we take down the fraud, get the seat, AND preserve our electoral viability by NOT looking like sore losers.

[Tuxedo]

It would be interesting to see a poll taken to see who the state supports now, knowing that the Senate is now in (R) hands. You have to think that SD voters would feel different now that they would have two Sens in the minority, and probably not get preferential treatment when it comes to pork.

[hchutch]

It might, but the fact remains that Johnson is the preceived winner. We need to get the proof of fraud if we are to reverse this.

And the average person is going to believe the FBI over the RNC or DNC. We need to use that to our advanatge. Have TEM release the info, and when they are swearing in thye Senators for the 108th Congress, Johnson gets seated pending the results of the FBI investigation.

The Dems want to play the race card. Why walk into the ambush that we know they are setting up?

[KC Burke]

I certainly don't question your earnestness.

...on day one of the first session of the new Congress is for the Senate to seat Johnson conditionally...

but my point is that there is no proceedure for that to occur if SD certifies Johnson. The FBI, the AG, a citizen petitioning the Senate, none of those will have standing to bring the issue up. A Senator raising the issue will be told that here are his credential from the State of SD. End of story.

Now, by saying this, I'm not saying that a battle can't be waged at the start of the next session, but the Wedge has to be driven now, the case has to be made now, otherwise the credentials go forward and no handle is available for any later battle. The candidate and citizens are afforded redress, but only as prescribed. Therefore they must make the claims within the proceedures.

[thtr]

According to the State of South Dakota web site:

Shannon County votes in statewide races: (% refers to the percent of total votes for all candidates for that race in county)

US Senate - Johnson (D) 2856 92%
US House – Herseth (D) 2857 92%
Governor – Abbott (D) 2535 86%
Sec. Of State – Looby (D) 2777 90%
Atty. General – Volesky (D) 2653 86%
State Auditor – Butler (D) 2762 92%
Treasurer – McGregor (D) 2799 92%
Comm. Schl. – Healy (D) 2679 89%
Pub Utilities – Nelson (D) 2773 92%
Pub Utilities2 – Johnson (D) 2759 92%

State Legislature:
Dist 27 State Senate – Hagen (D) 2505 89%
Dist 27 State House – Bradford (D) 2136 46%
Dist 27 State House – Valandra (D) 2135 46%
(Apparently they can vote for two candidates here but vote split identical?)

Ballot Questions:
Constitutional Amendment A – (No) 1245 43%
Constitutional Amendment A – (Yes) 1664 57%
Constitutional Amendment B – (No) 1411 49%
Constitutional Amendment B – (Yes) 1464 51%
Constitutional Amendment C – (No) 1315 46%
Constitutional Amendment C – (Yes) 1563 54%
Initiated Measure 1 – (No) 880 30%
Initiated Measure 1 – (Yes) 2037 70%

Although this looks very suspicious – especially 43% voting no on amendment A, unless concrete evidence of voter fraud is found, this is just another heavily democratic county.

[hchutch]

Congressman Billybob posted a little about this a couple days ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/783601/posts?page=29#29

"Last stop is the Senate itself. It is the "sole judge of the ... election of its Members." It can do its own count, and can even reverse the "official" count that comes from S.D. (The House did that in 1984 (?), seating a Democrat when Indiana reported that the Republican had won.)"

Article I, Section 5 is the big trump card/ace in the hole. Thune does not have to do a thing - the Senate can decide to look into this on day one of that session. They can seat Johnson pending the results of the investigation. Or if the info comes out about the margins between now and the start of the next Congress (I believe it will be in the first week of January), they could seat Thune as opposed to Johnson, and no lawsuit can change it.

[hchutch]

The FBI has been investigating since October. Thune doesn't have to do a thing. All the Senate has to do is to seat Johnson "pending the results of the FBI's vote fraud investigation in South Dakota".

If the FBI proves vote fraud swung the election to Johnson(and National Review's reporting indicates there are as many as 1,750 questionable voter registrations attributed to one activist), then the Senate has no choice in the matter. Lott can look apologetic as he calls for the vote that seats Thune in place of Johnson.

And the thing is, they are acting on information from the FBI. And despite all the missteps, the average person on the street thinks very highly of the integrity and honor of the FBI. If the Dems race-bait the FBI, they will lose. If they go along with seating Thune, then they will have to explain to their base why they allowed Johnson to be unseated.

If we play this right, THEY will be divided and in a circular firing squad.

[ImpBill]

Done.

[M Kehoe]

Can you say Glendening vs Sauerbrey? I knew you could

Can you say Sanchez vs Dornan? I knew you could. And there are many more examples.

5.56mm

[Ben Hecks]

Bump.