|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Herseth Sandlin Defends Food-for-Votes Scheme
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | Scott³ |
| Last Edited | Scott³ Oct 21, 2010 10:34am |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | News |
| Author | Lucas Lentsch |
| News Date | Monday, October 18, 2010 04:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | "Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin went on record over the weekend defending her food-for-votes scheme. In a KTIV interview on Friday, Herseth Sandlin calls her actions legal and accuses the Republican Party of trying to suppress Democratic votes, and even suggests that she conducted the feeds so voters wouldn’t have to drive 70 miles one way to vote early. Once again, she is wrong on two fronts:
1. She’s wrong on the law. Last week, South Dakota’s Attorney General and United States Attorney sent a letter spelling out the election law, and referenced a letter written in 1998 by then Attorney General Mark Barnett and United States Attorney Karen Schreier. In that letter they state clearly:
“It is important that everyone understand that the law does not require that the offering of a meal, money, gifts, or whatever, be in exchange for voting a certain way or for a certain party. Simply offering to provide these items of value, in exchange for showing up to vote, is clearly against the law.” (Barnett/Schreier Letter, dated April 14, 1998)
2. She’s wrong on the facts. Herseth Sandlin promoted, organized, and attended three feeds last week in Pine Ridge, Lower Brule, and Crow Creek. She justifies her actions by claiming that those voters would have to travel 70 miles to vote. They don’t. Pine Ridge voters have had early voting available every week at a satellite location for the last three weeks. Voters in Lower Brule and Crow Creek have no further than 26 miles to drive to early vote. And on Election Day, registered voters have reasonable access to the polls all day long, usually right in their community.
Apparently Congresswoman Sandlin is subscribing to the old adage “If you don’t have the facts, then argue the law; if you don’t have the law, then argue the facts; if you don’t have either, then attack the other side.” |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
