South Dakota Suspicions

The very last precincts to be counted killed the hopes of GOP Senate candidate John Thune. Was something funny going on?

oday a team of Republican election experts is in South Dakota, looking into the circumstances of Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's extraordinarily narrow, last-minute victory over Republican candidate John Thune.

While it is certainly possible that there were no significant irregularities involved in the voting, some Republicans are puzzled by the way the vote-counting unfolded. Early Wednesday morning, with 99.65 percent of South Dakota's precincts reporting, Thune held a narrow lead over Johnson. It was only when the last three precincts (out of a total of 844) were counted that Johnson finally edged ahead. What has made some Republicans suspicious is that those final precincts were located in a southwestern county that was in the news for allegations of voting fraud in the weeks leading up to the election.

MINUTE BY MINUTE For most of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, the election returns looked promising for Thune. At 1:32 A.M. EST on Wednesday, an Associated Press report showed Thune had 134,904 votes to Johnson's 132,648 with 648, or 77 percent, of the state's precincts reporting. At 2.47 A.M., the AP issued another report, this one showing Thune with 153,952 votes to Johnson's 149,789, with 736, or 87 percent, of precincts reporting — a lead of more than 4,000 votes.

At 3:41 A.M., Thune was up 158,331 to 154,602, with 776, or 92 percent, of precincts reporting.

At some point after that, Thune's lead began to shrink. By 6:38 A.M., with 838, or 99.3 percent, of the state's 844 precincts reporting, Thune led Johnson by 166,588 to 165,639 votes. It was close, but Thune was still in the lead by nearly 1,000 votes with just six precincts left to count.

Then the lead narrowed dramatically. By 8:28 A.M., Thune had 166,747 votes to Johnson's 166,559, with 841, or 99.65 percent, of the 844 precincts reporting. Thune was up by just 188 votes with three precincts left to count.

Those last precincts killed Thune's chances to win. At 9:21 A.M., with 843 of 844 precincts reporting, Thune trailed Johnson, 166,707 to 167,252.

Finally, at 10:22 A.M., the last precinct was counted and reported. Thune trailed Johnson 166,954 to 167,481 — a margin of 527 votes. Johnson claimed victory.

It was a stunning finish to a race that was clearly tight but appeared for much of the night to be in Thune's hands. Somewhere in the last five precincts, Thune's Senate hopes disappeared.

QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES The vote counting has attracted the attention of Republicans because the precincts that defeated Thune — the ones that were counted last — were in Shannon County, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The county has been the target of intensive get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats and has reported the largest gain in registrations, 17 percent, of any county in the state. In recent weeks, federal and local authorities have been investigating allegations of fraudulent voting practices related to some of those new voters (along with some in other counties around the state).

In mid-October, the Shannon County auditor said one in ten of the county's new registrations was under investigation for possible irregularities. On October 20, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported that, "Auditors in 10 counties, all but one adjoining a reservation, have forwarded questionable registration forms or absentee ballot requests to the sheriff or state's attorney for investigation. Of the nearly 400 questionable documents discovered by the auditors, 338 came from Shannon and Pennington counties, where the two investigations into possible voter fraud are under way."

Shannon County went heavily for Johnson — out of 3,118 votes cast, 2,856, or about 92 percent, went to Johnson, while 248 went to Thune (a third-party candidate received 14 votes). That percentage, in itself, might not be particularly unusual; Native Americans in South Dakota vote heavily Democratic, and Johnson is popular with Native Americans. But one thing that has aroused Republican curiosity is the significant increase in the number of votes cast in Shannon County since the last mid-term election, in 1998, in which Sen. Tom Daschle won reelection.

In 1998, there were just 1,559 votes cast in Shannon (that is precisely half the votes cast this year — a statistical nicety that might signify nothing, but might still catch Republican eyes). Of the 1998 total, 1,228 went to Daschle and 239 went to Republican Ron Schmidt (a third-party candidate won 92 votes).

What some Republicans find interesting about the numbers is that the popular Daschle, who won in a landslide statewide, won just 79 percent of the votes in Shannon County — significantly less than Johnson won this year — while Schmidt, who lost by a huge margin in 1998, received about the same number of votes that the well-known Thune received this year. Even though the total number of voters in Shannon County has gone up dramatically, it appears that virtually none of them chose Thune.

The situation might be completely attributable to get-out-the-vote efforts; 17,000 new voters were signed up statewide in recent months, and Democrats were particularly aggressive in Shannon County and on the state's other Indian reservations. But Republicans signed up new voters, too, and now they want to have a look at the county's voting patterns.

Finally, the GOP wants to know more about the timing of the Shannon County returns. Although nothing is set in stone, some observers say it is not usually the pattern in statewide elections for Shannon County returns to be the last counted. Given the fact that the county provided Johnson's winning margin, and given the earlier allegations of corruption, Republicans want to know why Shannon was so late this time.

WHAT TO DO? At this moment, the South Dakota secretary of state's office is finishing its official canvass of the election. That process in effect rechecks everyone's math and comes up with a final vote total for all the races. It is not designed to uncover voter irregularities.

According to state law, Thune is entitled to ask for a recount. On Wednesday, he released a carefully worded statement that suggested he might choose to do so. "If there is a change in the numbers or evidence of irregularities after the official election canvass, I will look at pursuing the next step in the process, which is a formal recount," Thune said:

However, I do not wish to put the people of South Dakota through this process unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, if there is no change in the vote totals or any irregularities after the official canvass, we will pursue no further action and the results will stand...No one would be happier than I to see those numbers change as the process continues. However, if the numbers stand, I am prepared to accept the outcome and know that my supporters and all those who have stood with me during this process will accept the outcome as well.

Speaking publicly later on Wednesday, Thune seemed inclined to let the matter drop after the canvass. At this point, it is simply not clear whether he will ask for a recount or take any other action.

Republicans want to be careful in the course they choose. They have already won the Senate, and they do not want to embroil the party in a long, acrimonious fight over a contest that will not affect the balance of power in Washington. In addition, they do not want to embark on a Democratic-style legal battle if there is no solid evidence of fraud. But at this point, they want to know what happened. The circumstances of Johnson's last-minute comeback look a little odd, and Republicans want to learn the story behind the numbers.

Interesting piece...

Officials: Ballots only altered to make them readable
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SIOUX FALLS - It is not uncommon for election workers to make duplicate ballots if the original cannot be read by machines, said elections supervisor and Secretary of State-elect Chris Nelson.

His comments came amid reports that election workers in Shannon County darkened marks on ballots because voters wrote too lightly in Tuesday's election.

But Nelson said there is a procedure for dealing with cases where ballots were not adequately marked by voters. In such cases, a resolution board creates a duplicate ballot that was marked the same way as the original, but done in a way that it can be scanned by machines, Nelson said.

Nelson said he did not know specifically what happened in Shannon County, but it would only be a problem if workers were not making duplicate ballots.

''If they were darkening the marks on existing ballots and not making a duplicate, that's greatly troublesome,'' he said. ''We want to preserve that original in the exact fashion that the voter marked it so if there's any question ... it can be reviewed.''

Renee Dross, election clerk for Fall River County, which handles elections for Shannon County, said there was nothing unusual about what election workers did and that duplicate ballots were made. Such cases come up in all elections, she said.

''It really wasn't a big deal,'' Dross said.

from: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/4459206.htm

This is an execellently researched article - thanks for posting it. I wonder if Bon Homme County is near Shannon and the area suspected of fraud. Did you see this thread yesterday?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/783850/posts

Here's the gist of it:

I read in an earlier thread that, as of the March 2002 primaries, Bon Homme County had some 2,200 registered republicans and some 1,900 registered democrats. CNN shows that Johnson received 1,858 votes (nearly 100% dem turnout) versus Thune's 144 votes (only 7% republican turnout). How could the republican turnout be so low? Just a 50% republican turnout would have put Thune way over the top.

He doesn't mention the apparent fact that every man and woman in the county, save approximately two, are registered to vote. This blatant fraud MUST be prosecuted, or our entire system of government is a sham.

I agree that Shannon County merits investigation, but given that the county has a 2001 census estimated population of 12,783 it is certainly not impossible that 3,118 people voted.

We don't want to look like Sore-Loserman 2000 by going off half-cocked on this. It should be done professionally and without shrillness, especially since there is a special election in Louisiana on Dec. 7th that the Republicans will likely win if they can avoid turning off the middle with such tactics.

In short, let the investigation proceed, and perhaps we'll see the Dems hang themselves on this. (I'm about to post a related article if it isn't here already.)

While Shannon and Bon Homme counties are both on the sourthern border of S. Dakota, Shannon is near the western edge, while Bon Homme is near the eastern edge. Also, while Bon Homme is 95.5% white, Shannon is 94.2% American Indian.

(see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46/46009.html)

PS - Americans will not be turned off by a request for a recount in such a close race, particularly given Thunes' gracious stance thus far and the prior reports of fraud. SERIOUSLY - the margin here is so small as to be reversed by simple recount alone. The further potential for excluding fraud could make a change in margin significant.

as of the March 2002 primaries, Bon Homme County had some 2,200 registered republicans and some 1,900 registered democrats. CNN shows that Johnson received 1,858 votes (nearly 100% dem turnout) versus Thune's 144 votes (only 7% republican turnout). How could the republican turnout be so low?

CNN has a typo. See the official site at:

http://www.state.sd.us/sos/results/allraces.shtml

Thune had 1,444 votes, not 144 in Bon Homme County

I agree, and I hope and pray that is the way we all can proceed on this. So far, it appears that is the approach Thune and the Republicans (and the media so far) are taking.

Americans will not be turned off by a request for a recount in such a close race

I agree, go for the almost-automatic recount -- as long as it's done in a low-key, routine manner. But even apart from raising the fraud issue (a major double-edged sword) sounding too much like you're haunted by a "grievance" when going for a recount is apt to injure one's future prospects (e.g., B-1 Bob Dornan, if I remember correctly, as well as Sore Loserman).

The constitution guarantees every state (and by implication its citizens who comprise the state) a "republican" form of government. This means at minimum fair elections untarnished by blatant fraud. The fourteenth amendment guarantees "equal protection" of the laws. Allowing or facilitating election fraud certainly violates this provision since the truly elected candidate may be fraudulently denied office.

While I do not like the Florida example of using the courts to try to overturn elections I don't know where else a citizen can go to get a hearing and redress when they belileve their votes are being cancelled by fraud. It seems to me that legal voters in S. Dakota who suspect fraud would therefore have standing to sue the corrupt election or party officials who knowingly participated in a fraudulent election. If there is evidense of fraud, I would hope that thousands of S. Dakota citizens (not the political parties or the candidate but the actual citizens!) would file a class action suit demanding immediate action to investigate and correct the vote. It would be refreshing for honest citizens who just want a fair election to use the courts and the laws to protect their civil rights for a change!

Precisely what happened in Milwaukee in the Presidential election (Bush "lost" Wisconsin by 5,000 votes---easy to manufacture in Milwaukee's precincts)

Precisely what most likely happened this year in Wisconsin's Attorney General race, where the Dim won, pulling MORE VOTES than the Dim Governor nominee--and many suspect that votes from 3 counties (Sheboygan, Milwaukee(?) and EauClaire) were, ah, tainted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.