Election questions
l3wis 
We have an important election coming up in November. There are two major ballot initiatives, one has to do with raising taxes the other has to do with education. I have concerns about how our elections have been handled over the past couple of years. I have a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers.
Let’s start from the beginning;
• A Sioux Falls mayoral election in which Staggers was victorious in the general and mysteriously 6,000 new voters showed up to the polls a few weeks later in the runoff helping Huether to clinch victory.
• Minnehaha County Auditor Bob Litz proudly displaying Build It Now signs in his yard until chided by me, an Argus reporter and another concerned citizen to remove the signs, in which he conceded.
• Sioux Falls City Clerk Debra Owen terminated just weeks before the crucial Events Center special election.
• Record turnout for a special election approving the new Events Center.
• Rumors of registered voters living outside of the city limits voting in the Events Center election using old Sioux Falls addresses (I heard of at least two instances where a voter lived in Canton, and one lived in Minnesota – blatant voter fraud).
• Jason Gant getting elected Secretary of State campaigning on a faux issue about the Feds taking over our elections. (This has been proven to be unsubstantiated).
• Secretary of State Gant trying to change rules without the consent of his special committee.
• A move towards e-polling and super precincts in Sioux Falls (I am all for e-polling, but I do not agree with super precincts. We live in a democracy, voting should be as easy as possible and ‘saving money’ should never be used as an excuse to use super precincts).
• Recent municipal election ballots running out. A seemingly dismissive city clerk and a silent School District employee with no real explanation. There wasn’t even an informal investigation by the SOS’s office that I heard of anyway.
• SOS’s operations manager possibly moonlighting as a campaign consultant, and once revealed makes an internet link joke about it.
As you can see, a lot of questions, not a lot of answers. I am only a volunteer blogger, I can’t find the answers to these questions on my own, our MSM needs to start digging.
BANNING TEXTING
I also am suspicious of the recent coalition that is proposing an ordinance change concerning banning texting in Sioux Falls, side stepping the state legislature. Does anyone find it a coincidence that the Mayor is good friends with one of the coalition’s members (Rob Oliver). I speculate this is a move to test the waters of our Home Rule charter by the mayor himself. Why isn’t this powerful group of individuals organizing a petition drive to get it on the November ballot for a statewide ban. And when the group’s leader, Rich Lauer was asked about the state’s involvement during the public services meeting, he was clueless as to why the state has failed to pass a ban (in other words they didn’t even attempt to explore that option).
Chief Barthel had concerns about the ordinance, he also had SFPD Captain Steve Haney, chair of a safe driving task force in Sioux Falls speak about his concerns. Something that stuck out in his testimony was that ‘Distracted Driving’ isn’t recognized by the state when filling out an accident report (I think that is what he was referring to) and says that state law has to change to fix that (as I mentioned above, there needs to be a petition drive to put this on the state ballot).
So why do I think the mayor is testing the waters? This is a perfect issue that could easily pass the council. Everyone agrees texting while driving is idiotic. What the mayor and council need to do though is learn from history. The city has lost 3 cases already in reference to the Home Rule charter and it’s power. It’s not a constitutional document. Daily vs. The City of Sioux Falls, the red light camera case and the city trying to regulate video lottery are prime examples of why the Home Rule charter cannot trump state law. The Public Services committee needs to table this proposal and send a clear message to the mayor’s office that it is not within the city’s power to regulate traffic laws, as Haney pointed out, that should be the state’s objective.
