Cory does a better job than I in explaining Salter’s ruling on the petitions

I would like to thank Cory for weighing in on the topic;

The petitioners argued that they “substantially complied” with the law in seeking signatures from Sioux Falls voters. Indeed, no one has demonstrated that Team Danielson sought to pad its signature count by seeking signatures from non-Sioux Falls voters. Clerk Greco’s own review of the petition found sufficient local signatures to validate the petition if the oath hadn’t fouled things up.

But Judge Salter doesn’t ask whether the petitioners substantially complied with the signature requirements. He asks whether the petitioners substantially complied with the requirement to swear the municipal initiative petition oath by swearing the statewide initiative petition oath. Judge Salter says that swearing the latter does not substantially comply with swearing the former.

Bruce also weighs in on Cory’s post;

Cory, the courtroom experience was interesting and Judge Salter was very engaged in the questioning. I was impressed in his involvement.

There is a misconception needing to be cleared up. The statement from the ruling “Danielson knew he had obtained the Statewide Form and not the correct Municipal Form when he began his petition effort in late July” was never addressed in the courtroom.

I did not learn of the oath error until a week AFTER the petitions were submitted for validation. Had the city website been functional or the Clerk been willing to assist in construction of the petition, I would not have used the wrong oath.

This narrative is what happens when anyone makes decisions on what you think happened without knowing all the facts. I could have been asked the question when I was on the stand. Now it is part of the permanent record without being part of the evidence.

I have argued that if Judge Salter would have ruled in favor of Danielson, he could have possibly set himself up with an even bigger decision, whether or not to rule an injunction against the bond sale. By ruling against Bruce, based solely on the oath and not signatures Salter freed himself from having to make a very ‘political’ decision. Judges try to stay out of politics, and who can blame them? I’m not saying that was Salter’s angle, I’m just saying by not ruling in favor of the petitions he saved himself a lot of headache.


#1 The D@ily Spin on 10.02.16 at 8:12 am

What’s sad is this proves citizens have no method for preventing Huether steering the city into bankruptcy. There’s half a billion dollars that got spent on extravagant overpriced luxuries. It’s like how a drug cartel controls a country. Those with authority get rich from bribes while the starving population gets fed with a mayor’s picnic.

If we tried another petition, it’d get thrown out on a technicality also. At this point, let the damage continue. No doubt the next mayor will have to accept bankruptcy. It’s not all bad. Wall Street money from everywhere but here came to town and built ridiculous landmarks. We’ve got a place for rodeos, indoor swimming, private indoor tennis, and a designated admin building that can be repurposed into a jail.

#2 Sammy on 10.03.16 at 2:30 pm

The judgment is based on the “Findings of Facts”… if you don’t think the Findings were correct, there is an avenue to address that. Your legal counsel should have worked with that.