Good question. I guess if I had to answer, in the capacity of our current mayor, I would say the city clerk in cooperation with the school district. But in all reality it was SOS Gant’s idea to push the E-Poll books (because the people who supply the equipment and software are big SD GOP campaign contributors). And the city clerk and school district along with the county auditor, ate it up, hook-line-and-sinker.

It doesn’t only surprise me that the mayor didn’t know the answer to this question, but the answer is detrimental to the SD Dem party. Voter suppression, the key to the GOP domination in SD. You know the old saying, ‘Follow the Money’. Our super precincts and E-Poll books are the epitome of voter manipulation. While this young buck understands how the system works, I also understand how the system could be easily hacked and manipulated. How easy would it be for John Doe to vote at every single precinct?

The April 8th election results will be very telling, even if our mayor doesn’t understand the process.


Super Precincts are designed to keep people from voting under the guise of streamlining the process of voting. We no longer have places in our neighborhoods a person can walk to vote.

The voter now must have transportation to reach the voting booth. Just another way to block the free and unencumbered access to the polls.

On March 14, 2014 Mayor Huether shows how little he cares for the average person’s access to voting.

The City Clerk has been before the City Council explaining this process promoted by SOS Jason Gant.

Super Precincts or Vote Centers can become a poll-tax for the elderly, disabled, poor and rural voters — because of the additional travel, time, missed work or physical stress of waiting in long lines to vote. Voters can no longer walk or travel a short distance to vote. For disabled, the voting location is no longer in a familiar neighborhood, and may be in a busy crowded facility. Election officials have to rely more on expensive and error prone technologies such as electronic poll books and touch-screen voting machines. When equipment crashes or fails to work, greater numbers of voters are simultaneously disenfranchised. Denial of service attacks affect larger portions of voters. (More eggs in one basket)

Think of it this way, when the aforementioned can’t make it to the polls, the privileged are the only voters.

13 Thoughts on “Who decided on the super precincts and the E-Poll books for the municipal election?

  1. Poly43 on March 16, 2014 at 3:36 pm said:

    And at the same time, while voter suppression is alive and well for the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the GOP has made it easier for the military amongst us….those most likely to vote for the already bludgeoned military industrial complex.

  2. A poll tax???? Come on. You need to educate yourself on the origin of “poll tax”.

    Both the dem and repub parties offer volunteers to help transport folks. Also if you can walk to your usual voting place you can walk to a bus stop to get to a super voting location.

  3. Winston on March 16, 2014 at 5:22 pm said:

    This whole “Super Precincts” concept is just plain ugly. The only justification I can find for it is that it is probably getting harder for government entities to find people to man the polling places and most of the people who do, with all do respect, look like they are ten plus years past their initial retirement age, which makes you wonder how much longer they can keep doing this and who will be their replacements – leaving local governments to think the answer to this problem is to create fewer precincts to man.

    However, can each individual “Super Precinct” in theory handle all the voters on election day? Shouldn’t they be required to have that capacity if the elections are to be fair and democratic? Under the old system didn’t each precinct have enough ballots for the known number of registered voters for that given precinct? What happens if 15 or 20 % of the voters all show-up at one precinct for a given election are they ready for that one?

    Also, where is the paper trail to back-up the electronic monitoring of who has voted and who has not?

    Those who support “Super Precincts” will probably argue that the criticism of them is at best short lived because they will eventually be replace by internet voting, but then the question becomes, “Where’s that paper trail?”

    I understand the mobility argue that “Super Precinct” advocates always mention, but when you are eighty years old and relatively healthy a four block walk or ride to your local precinct is a lot more realistic in a “mobile” sense than a drive off into the distance amongst greater traffic with walking have been removed as a viable option.

    “Super Precincts” are voter suppression – designed to facilitate the counters and the politicians who hire them and not the voters. The mobility argument is merely a convenience to some and even for them it means longer voting lines.

    As far as for the aging poll keepers, it is time to up the wage for them so as to attract more poll keeper candidates as well as replacements down the road for future “fair” elections.

  4. Why is the Mayor so defensive/adamant about addressing Bruce.. “I will get to you, I’m not trying to, you know, I’ll get to you, I swear”….. sounds like he really doesn’t want Bruce to speak!!!

    About 3 weeks to go, lets shake things up at City Hall on April 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Taxpayer-Voter on March 16, 2014 at 9:41 pm said:

    I wonder what MMM’s plans are if he looses the election?

    Maybe he will return to working for T. Denny……

  6. 85th stuckee on March 16, 2014 at 9:46 pm said:

    I agree Emmett. If you are the Emmett for city council. Kick some butt. I’m voting for you

  7. hornguy on March 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm said:

    To respond to Winston:

    If you want voter fraud, it’s way easier to mess with paper balloting than electronic balloting.

    E-balloting is also way clearer, especially if voters are provided a redundancy option at the end where they can review their choices. Think that would’ve given us a more accurate outcome in Florida in November 2000? Or are you going to defend a system where people have to punch holes in paper and can handwrite shit on a ballot, like that isn’t a wide-open door for subjective interpretation?

    As for the super precincts concept, it’s absolutely centered on the fact that municipalities can’t find enough volunteers to staff dozens and dozens of polling locations. That and the reality that the vast majority of voters are far more mobile than they were 50 years ago and in many instances would simply prefer to vote at a location that is more convenient for them. And for many voters these days, that’s not the location in their precinct. Much to the chagrin of Citizens for Integrity, the “average” voter works, is middle-aged, and drives a car. Super precincts aren’t a problem for the average voter.

    Now, do we talk about how to mitigate potential damage to those narrow groups who *may* be harmed by the concept? Sure. That’s absolutely reasonable. Oh wait, we already allow people to receive and return ballots by mail? Boom. Glad we solved that problem already. Heck, you only have to fill out the form once a year to request EVERY ballot be mailed to you.

    Good luck with your voter suppression argument when government will mail you ballots at taxpayer expense. What next? Too hard for people to walk to their mailboxes?

  8. pathloss on March 17, 2014 at 9:05 am said:

    If Mike had his way, this would be a Crimea election. We’d be voting to join with Russia. Per our crazy charter and repressive city ordinances, we’re (methodically) there. What’s important now is to prevent the Ukraine (rest of SD) also joining Russia. I’ll not vote for him but he should be mayor when the feds investigate. What’s important now is educating the rest of the state before he’s super precinct elected governor. Imagine all of the cemetery & unverified absentee RVers voting for him.

  9. Concerned Citizen on March 17, 2014 at 9:13 am said:

    The truth about Vote Centers is that more voters can be processed in shorter amount of time. Epollbooks simply allows the check-in time to move much faster. I am told the Epollbook system updates every 2-5 seconds so no voter would be allowed to vote twice. Voters still get paper ballots. So what is the down-side there?

    From the city’s map I see that Vote Centers are located on main thoroughfares so they are easy to get into and easily located…most everyone passes near one of the places on their daily jaunts to the grocery, the Center for Active Generations, the doctor, the mall, the Post Office…a Vote Center is near to most of those places.

    HornGuy is right, there are always absentee ballots anyone can request. I believe the Minnehaha County Auditor’s Office is the place people can absentee vote while they are there anyway paying their taxes or getting their license plates/decals.

    Winston is also correct that most of us do not want to spend 13 hours sitting at a polling place listening to cranky voters. Poll workers cannot leave the polling site…once there they are there for the duration. That’s a long day for $120.

    So I, for one, salute those people and anything we can do for them, by giving them technology that is easy to use…I am all for it.

    Move to the 21st Century people. Technology is here and is going to be integrated into every part of life. That is one of the reasons we can post on blog sites.

  10. Dan Daily on March 17, 2014 at 9:24 am said:

    It’s a good thing I have navigation in my Jeep. It’ll be easier to reach all super precinct polling places before the end of election day.

  11. Poly43 on March 17, 2014 at 9:25 pm said:

    The population of SF is about 10,000 more than 2010, when the last mayoral election was held. If super precincts are the best thing since sliced bread then it will show in this years election. In 2010 the turnout was 29,780 voters or 32.16% of the registered voters. The population explosion and super precincts should push voter turnout to record numbers. Yes??? Well, I say no. I’ll put the over under at the last election numbers of 29,780 and give you the advantage of the 10,000 new residents. I say…UNDER. You have the advantage. More potential voters and the super duper precincts.

  12. rufusx on March 18, 2014 at 8:42 am said:

    Poly, turn out can’t be assumed to be effected by that one single factor. It’s more dependent on whether or not there’s an incumbent in the race – there is – so that alone lowers interest. Other factors are the interest of the public in other issues (referenda, initiatives) on the ballot.

    To hear the petitioners talk, you can expect a 90% turn-out. Of course, that claim of high interest might be as valid as anything else they’ve claimed, which frankly, would be to their advantage – which they’re well aware of -which is why they are NOT spending any $$$ getting the issues publicized and is the real reason are so upset that the city is. Fact is it helps their cause at the polls if no-one hears anything about it – there is low voter interest/knowledge.

    Then there’s the weather, and other unpredictable influencers.

    To say it’s all about the super-precincts = silliness.

  13. Winston on March 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm said:

    Well, Hornguy,

    The “Super Precincts” have nothing to do with the paper ballot issue you allude to because we are still using the same ballot voting procedure in this County that we have used since the early 1990s with the new “Super Precincts.”

    Your comments go-off on this non germane discussion about e-balloting and 1960s style IBM “chad” concerns, which have nothing to do with our “Super Precincts” – especially when in Minnehaha County we are suing 1990s technology and not Broward County 1960s technology.

    E-polling is not E-balloting.

    You claim most voters are middle age with vehicles. Even if that is true, so what? “Super Precincts” mean longer lines with less time options than your neighborhood precincts have to offer.

    You then want everyone to mail-in their ballots if their bothered by the “Super Precincts” concept (which should not even be a problem if “Super Precincts” are such a good idea), which as a practical alternative means that the County Auditor’s office would be inundated with even more absentee or early voting ballots, which would obviously negate the workload advantage which “Super Precincts” are suppose to offer to the counters.

    The bottom line is this, “Super Precincts” are a form of voter suppression. If “Super Precincts” are convenient for the “Man on the go,” aren’t absentee ballots even more convenient and a part of the status quo already, and don’t you already like them?

    Why do we need to stand in long lines? The older comprehensive precinct system is not broken. But the “Super Precinct” concept is merely a political maneuver which take us closer to internet voting…. then where is the paper trail?

    Some things are sacred and work. If your a religious person there is really no need to change the Eucharist, if you are called for jury duty the centuries old procedure for picking jurors needs not to be changed, and if you care to vote you should be able to go to your neighborhood precinct site and vote…. Where it is convenient and the poll keepers know you.

Post Navigation