Let me show you something!
Grassroots election warriors who have been working to end election machine use in South Dakota have been met with insane amounts of lawfare and resistance to ending machine use…ALL machine use.
A huge (weaponized) issue are these two “conflicting” state laws:
If a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot at a polling place, such polling place is required to have an electronic ballot marking system present.
And,
12-17B-3. Authority of governing body to adopt, experiment with or abandon system.
Any governing body having supervision of elections within any political subdivision may adopt, experiment with, or abandon any automatic tabulating or electronic ballot marking system approved for use by the State Board of Elections. Any governing body may use the system in all or some of the precincts within its jurisdiction or in combination with any other type of voting system approved for use by the State Board of Elections.
The saga begins in 1994.
Now what we know as 12-17b-3 is section 7 below, clearly states that governing bodies (county commissioners) can CHOOSE their voting system…
HB1034 in 1994…provides that counties do NOT have to use machines.
https://sdsdl-montage.auto-graphics.com/#/item-details/entities_6197?from=search-results
In 2005, the law was amended via SB8:
Title: revise certain provisions concerning tabulation systems.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/19433
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/19433/102568
Listen in to Secretary of State Chris Nelson, he talks about removing punch card ballot system and INACCURATELY interprets HAVA to require machines by 2006 to have a touch screen voting system in our elections…he specifically calls it an “electronic ballot marking system”…
LISTEN:
He wanted the new ballot marking systems added to law so the BOE could certify it to enable use in our elections.
In the testimony a legislator asks the questions about NOT using the machines via the provision in 12-17b-3…Nelson states that law requires systems be certified by BOE…whatever system the counties use must have been approved by the BOE. He wanted to add the electronic ballot marking system to the law, NO changes to the fact that counties can CHOOSE not to use the machines. He reiterates that whatever system they choose to use must have been approved for use by the BOE.
Then things really change in 2006. Listen in to SB11, provide for the use of electronic ballot marking systems and for the appointment of precinct assistants and to declare an emergency.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/20268
THIS BILL IS WHAT MADE SOUTH DAKOTA A SLAVE TO THE SUBVERTED ELECTION SYSTEM AND THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRAPPED IN THEIR (S)ELECTION APPARATUS EVER SINCE.
Listen to Secretary of State Chris Nelson testify INCORRECTLY that we must have these machines as part of our elections:
HAVA DOES NOT mandate use of machines and has provision and protection for a paper ballot hand counted system…and we have a vast array of legal protections for those with disabilities (THIS has also been weaponized).
A State or jurisdiction that uses a paper ballot voting system, a punch card voting system, or a central count voting system (including mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in ballots), may meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(iii) by—
(i) establishing a voter education program specific to that voting system that notifies each voter of the effect of casting multiple votes for an office; and
(ii) providing the voter with instructions on how to correct the ballot before it is cast and counted (including instructions on how to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter was otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error).
(2) Protection of paper ballot voting systems
For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), the term “verify” may not be defined in a manner that makes it impossible for a paper ballot voting system to meet the requirements of such subsection or to be modified to meet such requirements.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson, with this bill, enabled the Federal takeover of our sacred elections.
Still no changes to the fact that counties can choose not to use machines…
You can listen here…Deputy Secretary of State testimony:
https://sdpb.sd.gov/sdpbpodcast/2018/hlo07.mp3#t=416
In the House, remarks included testimony that strikes language about electronic voting systems, BOE wanted the whole section about electronic voting removed.
https://sdpb.sd.gov/sdpbpodcast/2018/hou08.mp3#t=2426
In the Senate, the sponsor mentions that this amendment is STRIKING all instances of the “direct recording electronic system” and further testifies that in 2005 a law was passed that allowed auditors to choose to use ballot marking devices but mentioned further that… NONE of them had purchased the devices. How is this possible IF in 2006 it was MANDATORY per Federal law for us to have these devices?????
Here is what this bill amended for section 12-17b.3:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/8611/46612
So, here we are… “conflicting” law that the judge in our petition case to bring it to a vote of the people to choose between hand counting or machine counting, refused to dig into and address.
Legislative intent is CLEAR with 12-17b-3 that it is up to the counties to select what voting system they want to use…including a paper ballot hand counted system.
In the 2025 session, SD Canvassing Group brought SB217, to end the use of machines and repeal this unconstitutional law.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/25738
Senate State Affairs and the THESE Senators voted to defer it to the 41st legislative day:
Our elections are being stolen in a myriad of ways…including via these black box election machines.
2024 and President Trump will NEVER happen again…too big to rig is a one-time thing!
“We caught them all” is not just a tag line.
“Return the Diamonds” is not friendly banter.
Our rights have been infringed upon in so many ways, I’ve lost count!
I hear class action lawsuits can be very effective?
Do we have ANY patriot lawyers anymore?
Do we even have a chance in a broken legal system with activist judges?
Time will tell…
