Where do we go now?

1. No matter what happens, we still know PP and Gant are giving SD the one finger salute. They do not care if they run fair and clean elections. All of their actions so far point to make believe results. Subterfuge is a common tactic. While we have found this issue, we try to get the ‘press’ moving on it, nothing. Silence. Birds chirping…

   What we will likely hear about is voter fraud instead of Election Fraud. What is so hard to understand about the difference between the two?

   When and if the fraudulent voting during the city election is investigated, understand the distinctions.

   Election Fraud — a conspiracy by two or more people to create an environment, plan or actions to alter vote tally, prevent voting or break rules to allow unqualified voters. The Republican Party has been under Federal Court order since the 1980’s for promoting this activity.

   Voter Fraud — A single person, acting alone, voting more than once. No conspiracy, no one helping to accomplish this fraud. There has been almost no voter fraud in the USA, EVER. Americans do not intentionally throw away their right to vote.

   As soon as we hear complaints of dead people voting, ballot box stuffing, election machine issues, tally changes and other games played we are discussing ELECTION FRAUD. A conspiracy to have out of town people voting in a city election is ELECTION FRAUD.

   Being registered to vote in one community and living in another is not fraud. People move and don’t change their registrations. The voter fraud occurs if they now vote in the wrong community with the intention to sway the outcome. If someone assists or a group encourages this activity, it is ELECTION FRAUD.

   If a person registers to vote multiple times, no crime, no election fraud or voter fraud.
   If a person is using an incorrect address, no crime, no election fraud or voter fraud.
   If a person signs a petition incorrectly, no crime, no election fraud or voter fraud.

   The act of voting improperly can be construed as one type of fraud versus the other if the are encouraged to do it by others or the person consciously performed the act by themselves. Accidentally voting in the wrong precinct should never happen if the voter registration system is performing properly.

2. SOS Office, PP and Gant are responsible to make sure no one games the system or makes it work better for one persuasion to win the election. Vote counting and certifying elections is an almost holy position in the American system. It is what makes the whole process work for most, not the few.

   PP and Gant giving us the people the finger does not speak well for our future elections.

3. I hate even the whiff of “Chicago Politics.” When I saw the website for Powers, and for that matter Gant – I wondered who would not purchase their campaign stuff from the office that had final say in a close race, who had final say for campaigns, or campaign committees of their expenditures, disclaimers, filing data, reporting, etc, etc. On top of that the Secy’s office has final say in close races, and between candidates on close issues. Why was this Secretary the first one to endorse the power of Speaker of the State house over an excellent seated REPUBLICAN state senator?

   Those and a few other questions made decide to write the following letter:

   Dear Attorney General Jackley

   I request that you investigate the office of South Dakota Secretary of State. I am concerned about allegations of impropriety, conflict of interest, and possible illegal activity.

   A political commercial enterprise “Dakota Campaign Store” solicits political consulting, and sale of campaign material. It appears that it may actually be operating out of the Secretary’s office – by Mr Pat Powers, who is an apparent full time employee of that office, and has primary responsibility, in that office, for some of the same IT services that he is advertising.

   Does “DakotaCampaignStore.com,” use political filings from candidates to solicit business? It is obvious that Mr. Powers is the first to see any such filing – and with the new “assistance” program offered by his office has access to private information, not available to his competition.

   I am concerned about the endorsement in a primary election, of the incumbent Speaker of the House of Representatives. Does that endorsement arise out of any financial arrangements with this “consulting”service? Were any of the campaign material used in that primary race purchased through or by that enterprise?

   Does the Secretary himself directly or indirectly participate in earnings of this political operation? By indirectly, I mean discounts for material, utilization of services pro bono, etc.

   Has the Secretary purchased, even at market value, campaign material from that enterprise for his re-election campaign, or made use of mailing lists, etc?

   Has any of the business of this commercial service utilized State computers, office space, lists, office supplies, etc. in the conduct of it’s affairs.

   Time may be of the essence! I went online at 12:40 mountain time, June 15 and perused in detail Mr Powers advertising on DakotaCampaignStore.com. Shortly thereafter I expressed my concern to most of my Senate Colleagues. Since my posting to them, that website has been taken down! Mr Powers, among other things, is well known as a computer Guru – and I fear that evidence of wrongdoing could be erased, revised or otherwise distorted.

   If you establish apparent impropriety or misbehavior, I am also asking for your advice with regards two sections of Article XVI of the SD Constitution. Is it possible that Section 3 – “impeachment” – is something I should be seeking as a Senator or possible (and to my Engineers mind) more likely Section 4, “Removal from Office.” My education and background makes the distinction between the offences listed in each somewhat unclear.

   Stanford M Adelstein State Senator, District 32

Comments are closed.