Last week, Cory Madville did a great post about the technicality of the petition’s oath (thanks for filling in for me);
SDCL 2-1-11 requires that statewide petitions be†liberally construed, so that the real intention of the petitioners may not be defeated by a mere technicality.†If the spirit of that law applies to municipal petitions as well, then Danielson’s mis-oathed petition should stand, and the will of the voters should be heard.
Besides a bunch of armchair politicos, bloggers and attorneys, Mr. Danielson may get his day in court (details to come soon). A judge will ultimately have to decide the fate of the petition oath.
It is clear this will have to be settled in court, the city attorney, the SOS and the city clerk, Tom Greco did the right thing in invalidating the signatures, and Danielson admits he grabbed the wrong form. But what I take issue with is the defense of the city clerk in what he did before the petition was circulated.
Several councilors last night decided he needed defending, while I will defend him on invalidating the signatures, I WILL NOT DEFEND HIM on stamping the petition. Yes, Danielson has fully admitted he screwed up, he should have had an attorney review BOTH sides of the petition, he has admitted it was a mistake. But ultimately, Bruce is NOT the public official who has to verify a petition before moving forward, that is the job of the city clerk. There has been a lot of he said-she said in what happened. Bruce said he offered to show Greco the back of the form, and he said he didn’t need to see it, Greco offers that Bruce told him he didn’t need to see it. Either-or, doesn’t matter. The city clerk’s job is to verify a petition (both sides) and stamp it for approval. Greco did not do his job, period. Even if Bruce refused to show Greco the back of the form, Greco could have refused to stamp the petition. Pretty simple.
I still think the city clerk deserves a reprimand for what he failed to do at the beginning, but as of right now, it looks like that may be a judges decision.