UPDATE: All I asked was to audit the School Board Election

If you watch my testimony (FF:32:30) you will see that all I did was ask questions about how the vote was counted, presented historical data from other elections and asked to audit the election (see the processes, the software used, the paperwork from vote transfers and who entered the numbers in the system). The school board refused to answer any of the questions I asked. Never once did I say I thought they cheated I only questioned the precedent and would like to see the evidence. I even ended by saying that they may have reached the 85% precedent. I don’t know, I don’t have the evidence, it is locked up with the ballots according to the school district official who handled the election Bev Chase. In fact after the meeting Bruce and I asked if we could examine the ballots. She said NO. She also claimed she told the (TV) news that she was shredding the 2017 ballots. The news may have edited her, so I will take her word. But in the next breath she said she is keeping the school bond ballots for 6 years. So if you are keeping those ballots for 6 years why are you destroying the 2017 ballots? Made no sense at all.


UPDATE: First the important business. A shout out to friend of the blog and KSOO Host, Patrick Lalley for defending me today and open government. It meant a lot. He hasn’t put the replay up yet, but his comment about ‘Soviet Election Results’ was very comical.

Also another shout out to Stace Nelson for defending me on the tweet machine;

It is absolutely the right of a taxpayer to question their government & demand answers. In a state that has covered up hundreds of millions of $ in corruption in EB5 & GEAR Up? had a right to ask the questions and receive answers. Why not machine count?

As for Stace’s comments on machine counting, I got an update from someone who talked to the Minnehaha county auditor on the ‘cancelled contract’ statements from the SFSD. I guess Mr. Litz was asked to handle the absentee but not the election. Litz felt this would complicate things with the verification process and he would prefer to run the entire election (absentee and regular election) or not at all. We know the choice the school district made.

Also, a city official asked the City Clerk, Tom Greco today what he would do if a citizen asked to look at the ballots from the last election? He said, he would let them look at them.

Funny how the County Auditor and City Clerk have no qualms about the work they did. Why? Because when you have checks and balances in place, you don’t need to worry about a citizen review.


Besides NOT answering my questions or giving me the information I need to put this to rest, board member Mickelson said that I was accusing them of manipulation and it was my duty to provide evidence or proof. Um, maybe I am missing something here, but YOU hold the evidence and Bev Chase refused to give it to us.

It is a sad day in a democracy when the citizens who vote and pay taxes are not allowed to examine the processes of the election. It is even sadder that they couldn’t even answer my questions in a public forum. Petitions get challenged all the time in South Dakota. This doesn’t mean people don’t trust the process, it only means we want to check the process. I find it incredibly hypocritical of Mickelson getting upset over challenging the results of the election when her husband Mark led the charge to overturn the will of the voters on IM 22, claiming it was ‘Unconstitutional’ (even though the Supreme Court didn’t get a chance to review it) and voters were ‘hoodwinked.’ So I guess what Cynthia was telling me is that ONLY the House of Lords in Pierre have the power to challenge and overturn elections, the peasants be damned.

All I saw tonight was a lot of guilt, and ironically the main players in the election (school staff) sat mysteriously quiet while the school board defended them. Cat must of had their tongues.

I would even be comfortable with Bev Chase releasing a public statement telling us the processes they used, who counted the votes, how they were entered into the system and a sampling of how the software worked. They can’t even give us that. Why?! It seems incredibly silly to me to get so angry because we are asking how the election was handled. Is that some kind of top secret information? All we have at this point is a short FB video from Brady Mallory. Why not clear the air?

Through the beginning of the meeting when they were talking about the schools they were going to build, the locations and announcing the architect (Architecture Inc.) it seemed like a forgone conclusion that this would pass.

In the parking lot before the meeting Vernon Brown came up from behind me and said, “85 is my new favorite number.” I laughed and said, “Yeah, 85%.” Then I said, “About time Ellie won something.” Ellie Highstreet who received $21K to consult the Vote Yes campaign was Jim Entenman’s campaign consultant. That in itself should tell us something.

Like I said, it is impossible for me to say whether or not the 85% mark is accurate until we have a chance to audit and examine all the election documentation and processes. Historically in other similar elections in and around Sioux Falls it has never happened. But there is a first time for everything, unfortunately we may never know, because as they inferred many times tonight, “Just trust them, they’re good people.” I do trust people, but I trust the numbers more. Numbers don’t lie.


#1 D@ily Spin on 09.25.18 at 8:53 am

Without full disclosure one must assume there’s deception. Local government cannot be trusted once there’s been suspicion of irregularity. Manipulating elections is a fundamental abuse of democracy.

#2 l3wis on 09.25.18 at 9:11 am

Yes, notice all I was asking was to know the processes. My biggest question is how did the vote totals get into the system? In other words after the teams tabulated them, what happened next. Also, WHO put the votes into the system. Notice they wouldn’t even HINT as to how that happened. The more they deny manipulation, the worse they look. Just give me the answers already.

#3 T on 09.25.18 at 11:00 am

Kent is such a hot head! Seriously. If you push his buttons, he will start steaming!! Push away!

#4 Ljl on 09.25.18 at 11:38 am

You and Bruce have accused election fraud. You and Bruce are the only ones making these accusations. As a voter, I am not comfortable with giving you access to the ballots.
Again you have over stepped the bounds of public discourse.

#5 DAN on 09.25.18 at 12:21 pm

I saw the School Districts response today. Seriously how are you going to get proof if they won’t let anyone see the ballots or discuss the process. Hopefully, someone or some group has the financial resources to push this issue. I agree it is starting to look fishy…
Thanks for your work on this.

#6 Patrick L Lalley on 09.25.18 at 12:39 pm

They’re reaction was disgraceful. I’m going to go ahead and lose my S*^T on the show today about 3:15. It may be an epic rant.

#7 JKC on 09.25.18 at 1:06 pm

Although, I voted “Yes” on the bond issue, I do agree that the Board should be more transparent with your questions. What do they have to lose?

But don’t you worry, there is a great equilibrium to life and the “Super Precincts,” a “golden parachute” for a former Board member, and now the cockiness of “85,” as expressed by one its leaders, will create the perfect storm, or better yet, the ultimate Archille’s Heel for them over time… It is just a matter of time, however…. And hopefully the students will go untouched by it, but that the assumed powerful will be put in their place, once and for all….

#8 l3wis on 09.25.18 at 2:38 pm

LJL – Never used those words and never will. It is ONLY election fraud if they PURPOSELY manipulated the results. As I pointed out there are many factors if the process is not followed correctly that can skew the results. Human error, software malfunction, tabulation sheets mis read or entered twice. This is why I want to know what processes were put in place and what fail safes were applied. It if virtually impossible to prove election fraud if the evidence is NOT looked over. I actually believe the SOS should review this election to make sure all rules, laws and processes were followed and take a sampling of the ballots. It really is the job of the SOS to review and audit elections.

#9 Ljl on 09.25.18 at 4:33 pm

“This election will be forever tainted by many levels of corrupt behavior.”

Your own words on this blog. You can duck and dodge but we all understand what your implying.

#10 l3wis on 09.25.18 at 4:38 pm

Please show me a link, I don’t think I said that, it may have been a commenter.

#11 Rufusx on 09.25.18 at 6:50 pm

You want to do a personal audit? Get a lawyer – and file a FOIA request. The courts are the path to justice.

#12 taxpayer on 09.25.18 at 8:21 pm

Wait until the taxpayers realize they were hoodwinked by the $2 a month, $24 a year on a $185,000 house, sales pitch…..

#13 Matthew Paulson on 09.25.18 at 8:27 pm

FOIA requests are for federal documents only, I believe.

#14 l3wis on 09.25.18 at 8:39 pm

Ruf & Paulson, we are well aware. FOIA work for anything, not just Federal issues.

#15 JKC on 09.25.18 at 9:18 pm

Taxpayer, you watch, the soon to be hike in property taxes due to the hyperinflation with median priced homes will become the scapegoat for the reality of the potential $ 2 per month lie. That is why that hike needs to be identified and made sure to be used to offset any costs within the $ 190 million proposal and not used merely for pet projects…

#16 Matthew Paulson on 09.25.18 at 9:33 pm

L3wis – Are you sure you aren’t referring to state level open records laws? I thought FOIA only applies to federal agencies.

#17 Concerned on 09.25.18 at 10:55 pm

SDCL 6-8b-2 specifically states: Printer Friendly
6-8B-2. Election required for issuance. Unless otherwise provided, no bonds may be issued either for general or special purposes by any public body unless at an election sixty percent of voters of the public body voting upon the question vote in favor of issuing the bonds. The election shall be held in the manner described by law for other elections of the public body.

Source: SL 1984, ch 43, § 2.

This means the election MUST follow other election rules.

The have entire section on school board elections which would of course be the closest similiar election method.

The school board by 13-7-17 says there had to be an election board certification in EACH polling place, pollbooks in EACH polling place.

By 13-7-18 the school board itself must be the canvasser and declarer of the election.

I would say even if they paid someone to do the election those aspects of an election are REQUIRED by law. And if they did not do those things the results of the election should be held in limbo by a simple lawsuit.

#18 Rachel on 09.25.18 at 11:03 pm

I’d like a recount on the Trump/Clinton election and since the Weiland and DeBoer elections went to those I disagree with can we get a recount on those as well. Splendid!

#19 l3wis on 09.26.18 at 8:45 am

MP – You are correct, FOIA is Federal, but in SD we can request documents through the South Dakota Sunshine Law, §1-27-1 et seq

#20 Bruce on 09.26.18 at 8:47 am

South Dakota Sunshine Law, §1-27-1 allows anyone to request the books be opened for inspection

#21 Ljl on 09.26.18 at 10:46 am

Your post “live from IPC” night of the election. Your last sentence.

That’s the trouble with lies. Just one can destroy your integrity.

#22 l3wis on 09.26.18 at 11:16 am

That was Bruce’s comments under the YouTube video. So while it was on my blog, I didn’t say that.

#23 Warren Phear on 09.26.18 at 12:14 pm

I was listening live to P Lalley yesterday. Was interrupted when he was half way through his P&L. Thats why I have him on my iphone podcast list. Wanted to listen this morning, but podcast not up yet. Come on Pat. Get these up faster. I agree with the 85% remarks. I figured on a really good day, and the $2 a month message day after day, they could maybe convince 6 out of 9 to fall for this scam. But 8 out of 9?!
That I find hard to believe. Early voters were far and away seniors. NO WAY 8 of 9 of them wanted this passed. This just does not pass the smell test.