As lawmakers raise questions, election officials in South Dakota defend state’s electoral system

SIOUX FALLS — Regardless of the issues of some lawmakers and residents, South Dakota election officers are “very assured” that the state electoral course of is sound and that the 2022 common election outcomes can be correct and legitimate.

As is the case in virtually all states, the South Dakota electoral course of has come underneath elevated scrutiny because the 2020 election through which former President Donald Trump misplaced however has continued to assert the election was rigged and electoral processes in America had been compromised.

Nevertheless, South Dakota Secretary of State Steve Barnett and county auditors who run native elections say they’ve reviewed the issues and concluded that the electoral course of in place in South Dakota is safe and that voters can belief the outcomes of the Nov. 8, 2022, election.

“I’m very assured in our system, which is a bottom-up strategy led by auditors on the county degree, and I additionally know that our election legal guidelines are robust,” Barnett mentioned. “Now we have paper ballots, our tabulating machines will not be linked to the web, and a statewide canvass is accomplished after election day.”

Barnett mentioned that whereas he’s extremely assured within the South Dakota electoral system, he’s conscious that scrutiny of elections is at an all-time excessive in America. A number of the uncertainty additionally arose after election officers throughout the nation discovered methods to carry legitimate elections in 2020, a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was in full swing and procedures similar to absentee voting rose to unprecedented ranges of use.

“I believe some folks throughout the nation have decrease voter confidence, in order that carries over to different states,” Barnett mentioned. “At extra of the bottom degree in our elections, the auditors are seeing extra questioning of the method and the system than they’ve most likely ever seen earlier than.”

A number of the latest concern has come from Republican lawmakers, together with these within the new Freedom Caucus within the South Dakota Legislature, a gaggle of 24 conservative Republican lawmakers.

In an Aug. 19, 2022, letter to Gov. Kristi Noem and Lawyer Basic Mark Vargo, the lawmakers requested the 2 officers take steps to protect 2020 election data by directing our “county Auditors to uphold the rights of our residents to supervise and evaluation the election course of to additional strengthen our elections, and to honor our dedication to our residents for presidency transparency.”

In an Aug. 17 press launch, the Freedom Caucus requested Noem and different lawmakers to “be a part of them in taking quick motion in gentle of election integrity findings the caucus says they’ve not too long ago grow to be conscious of.”

The discharge continues: “The caucus has not disclosed the particular particulars relating to their findings, however acknowledged that a few of the points are time delicate and have an effect on the oversight of the election course of.”

When requested what “election integrity findings” the lawmakers had been referring to, Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Aaron Aylward, R-Harrisburg, mentioned the caucus needs to assist a residents’ group get hold of entry to voting data to evaluation them for inconsistencies, and has heard that some voters have been turned away from the polls in South Dakota. The caucus additionally needs to protect data from the 2020 election to be able to permit for additional opinions.

“The purpose I’m coming from is that within the 2020 election … I had issues with the way in which elections had been being carried out,” Aylward mentioned. “Some states had been worse than others, however it simply prompted people right here in South Dakota to look into it just a little extra.”

Barnett mentioned he and his employees have listened to and reviewed these issues however haven’t discovered any concrete proof of electoral issues or something that reveals an absence of integrity in South Dakota elections.

Barnett mentioned he hasn’t seen any supplies or data produced by the Freedom Caucus or a residents’ group that he would think about as “integrity findings,” or precise proof of electoral errors or wrongdoing.

“I’m not conscious of something concrete; it’s extra like rhetoric,” Barnett mentioned. “There’s nothing that I’ve seen concrete that they’ve reported to regulation enforcement or something concrete that has been dropped at our consideration. And I don’t know who they’re attacking, actually; it simply will get to be like taking part in whack-a-mole.”

A number of the issues raised by lawmakers dovetail with these of the residents’ group, known as the South Dakota Canvassing Group, which claims to have proof of serious electoral issues within the state. The group’s web site asks guests to “Assist us save South Dakota,” and offers primary 2022 election and poll data, but additionally asks for donations and seeks volunteers to ship in “election fraud ideas.”

The web site features a video of a South Dakota Canvassing Group member talking at a Second of Reality Summit hosted by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, and the location references connections to Capt. Seth Keshel. Each Lindell and Keshel are recognized to be election deniers.

Aylward mentioned the Freedom Caucus will not be formally linked to the canvassing group however shares a few of its issues.

“They contacted us on this problem, and I agree with them on a number of the issues that they’ve,” Aylward mentioned. “Lots of people see the stuff they [the canvassing group] are pursing as fringe, however I’d say they increase a number of good questions.”

Aylward mentioned that human error, together with voter error, performs a job in lots of election points. Aylward mentioned in an interview with Information Watch that he has no concrete proof of any electoral fraud in South Dakota right now. However in a subsequent interview, he mentioned his issues elevated after watching a video of a Sept. 20 press convention held by the canvassing group in Sioux Falls the place members raised questions on electoral integrity in South Dakota.

One of many key speaking factors raised by the canvassing group and different nationwide election critics is a need to evaluation Forged Vote Information, that are paperwork that some electoral machines produce to indicate how votes had been solid and by whom. Residents and teams throughout the nation — prompted by nationwide election deniers — have made formal data requests to see the CVRs, although lots of the paperwork will not be topic to open-records legal guidelines.

Aylward mentioned he had heard that some South Dakota auditors have launched CVRs and a few haven’t; and he mentioned he heard that some auditors are conscious that CVRs exist and others will not be. “That appears to outcome from a communication or coaching problem,” he mentioned.

Barnett advised Information Watch in an interview that South Dakota voting machines do produce the CVRs however don’t embrace pictures of precise ballots that would show helpful to somebody making an attempt to reconcile votes solid with vote tallies.

“If their objective is to decrease voter confidence statewide, that’s a device — to ask for one thing after which say, ‘We requested for it and didn’t get it,’ and that raises suspicion and lowers voter confidence,” Barnett mentioned. “I don’t know what they hope to achieve or what the motive is, so a few of this can be a head-scratcher.”

Aylward additionally mentioned he had heard from residents he trusts that they had been unable to vote as anticipated within the 2022 main election in June, or had been turned away on the polls.

Barnett mentioned some voter confusion did outcome from the redistricting course of undertaken not too long ago in South Dakota through which a couple of legislative districts and polling websites had been modified for some voters. Barnett urged voters to go to the secretary of state’s web site and use the Voter Data Portal to double-check their registration standing, the district through which they’ll vote, and their polling areas.

Aylward mentioned he doesn’t consider any points raised by the caucus or the residents’ group will affect the validity of the 2022 election in South Dakota.

“I see it as, if we come out with these letters and we’re capable of come along with the auditors to work collectively, I believe that improves voter confidence,” Aylward mentioned. “But when you find yourself butting heads or not coming to the identical conclusion, I can positively see that making confidence worse within the public’s view.”

Barnett mentioned a few of the new election scrutiny doubtless has its roots in Trump’s constant allegations of electoral fraud.

“He’s received a following of oldsters upset that he didn’t win,” mentioned Barnett. “He’s received a following, and a few of his followers are going to consider what he says … but when folks have questions, the very best useful resource can be to show to their county auditors.”

Barnett and Aylward, each Republicans, mentioned they acknowledge that President Joe Biden was duly elected in 2020.

Lincoln County Auditor Sheri Lund mentioned voter fraud is extraordinarily uncommon in South Dakota, and added that those that do attempt to recreation the system are usually caught and prosecuted.

“I don’t consider it’s common, and the safeguards are in place to forestall that,” she mentioned.

Lots of the issues that happen throughout voting are on account of unintentional errors on the a part of the voter, she mentioned. For example, a 90-year-old girl who voted absentee in a latest election forgot she had carried out so, after which was taken by her son to vote on Election Day. The error was caught and the girl was not allowed to vote twice, Lund mentioned.

“Each poll that goes out is accounted for, and if there’s a discrepancy, we might cease the method till the discrepancy is resolved,” she mentioned. “Now we have checks and balances for each side of the election course of.”

Lund mentioned one criticism of the election course of that arose in South Dakota not too long ago concerned claims that there have been roughly 125 voters whose ages had been listed as 120 years or older on the voter rolls. Upon investigation, she mentioned, officers had been capable of decide that some voter ages had been incorrectly entered into the system when a voter-registration laptop program was modified and the ages wrongly defaulted to these unobtainable ages.

Lund mentioned she and different auditors have acquired quite a few Freedom of Data Act requests for voting data and knowledge, and that they do their greatest to observe state legal guidelines in responding or offering materials.

Lund mentioned auditors not too long ago have acquired quite a few copies of the identical FOIA request for election paperwork signed by completely different folks.

“They’ve despatched out a mass mailing to each auditor within the state with the identical request,” she mentioned. “They’re looking for anyone that’s going to offer them data that they [the requesters] don’t have.”

When the Freedom Caucus letter was despatched to the governor and lawyer common, Lund mentioned she took discover, and with the assistance of Charles Combine County Auditor Jason Gant, organized a public assembly the place election issues might be raised and addressed.

“Whenever you get 24 legislators signing off on a letter that there are points with elections in South Dakota, that’s a priority,” she mentioned.

After internet hosting the assembly, and listening to the issues, Lund mentioned she remained steadfast in her help of the present electoral processes in her county and others throughout the state. Auditors in South Dakota keep in frequent contact about election processes, and if issues come up, they work collectively to repair them, Lund mentioned.

Up to now, she mentioned, she hasn’t seen proof of elementary points with the state electoral course of.

Lund mentioned she respects the rights of residents to query authorities and authorities officers.

“Should you’re not snug with what’s happening, query it, and If they offer you a solution and also you’re not snug with that reply, then second-question it,” she mentioned. “However in case you have no foundation in what you’re arguing about, does it actually grow to be a query at that time?”

Lund mentioned she feels that some folks, be it the canvassing group or those that present as much as county conferences, can generally go overboard in making an attempt to unfold controversy over issues they don’t perceive or agree with.

“I completely admire anyone that ever questions authorities, however in case you get a solution and also you get an evidence and you then’re utilizing fear-mongering to attempt to get folks to consider your thought, I don’t assume that’s proper,” she mentioned.

Aylward mentioned he and others will proceed to ask questions that he hopes will make the electoral course of in South Dakota extra clear and safer.

“So far as the election developing, if we will make it as clear as potential, and make the general public really feel higher, it’s going to put all people comfy,” he mentioned. “I do consider that the auditors are attempting their hardest and all of them are attempting to do an excellent job. I do have faith within the course of, however I don’t see the issue with trying into issues a bit extra.”

— This text was produced by South Dakota Information Watch, a non-profit journalism group positioned on-line at SDNewsWatch.org.