© 2010 jbjd

Newspapers in South Carolina are printing the fact Ms. Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party (“SCDP”) – she is also the wife of Don Fowler, the former Chair of the DNC Services Corporation – just announced she will not seek re-election to that post in 2011; but they still are not printing the real news:

Ms. Fowler’s resignation represents the departure of the last of the 2 (two) key officers in the state Democratic party – Ms. Fowler and Kathy Hensley, Treasurer – implicated in falsely certifying to the SC Election Commission, candidate Obama was qualified for the office of POTUS in both the 2008 Presidential preference primary and Presidential (Electors) election, which Certification of eligibility is required under SC election law before election officials may print the candidate’s name on the state ballot.

Of course, no documentary evidence exists in the public record to support he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, which fact could explain why both Ms. Hensley and Ms. Fowler refused to respond to voters who asked on what documentary basis either woman had ascertained such ballot eligibility.  Given this record of obfuscation, what D in his or her right mind would dare to step up to the SCDP plate in 2011 and swear Mr. Obama is a NBC?  (And keep in mind, in order to skirt admitting to the charges of election fraud already filed with AG McMaster; SCDP cannot now produce documentation they claim is the basis for Certifying the candidate is qualified for office in 2011; unless this documentation existed in 2007, when Kathy Hensley first swore BO was qualified to get on the SC Presidential preference primary ballot.)  See, for example, CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOWL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!); IF IT LOOKS LIKE a DUCK…; and OPEN LETTER to THE HONORABLE HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL of SOUTH CAROLINA.

No, instead of real news, we get this.

From the Sun News:

The Sun News reports, State Democratic leader to call it quits come spring

Party chairwoman Carol Fowler told The State she won’t seek a third term in the spring of 2011. Fowler said her decision not to seek re-election is not due to Greene, the party’s surprise U.S. Senate nominee, who is facing a federal obscenity charge.

From The State:

S.C. Democrats planning changes

Party’s leader won’t seek new term; rules might be amended in wake of U.S. Senate nomination

The S.C. Democratic Party will have a new leader next spring following the Alvin Greene political debacle.

Unlike some parties in other states, the S.C. Democratic Party does not endorse primary candidates, meaning the party could not go on the offensive against Greene nor could it aid Rawl.

“I am very squeamish about having the party take official acts to endorse or attack a candidate in a primary,” Fowler said. “We’ve always been more open than that, and I’ve been reluctant to start down the path where party insiders choose the nominee.”

Still, the state party is in talks to mend its rules because of Greene’s win.

“It has been suggested that we require candidates have a (criminal background check) done on themselves when they come to file,” Fowler said, “but no decision has been made.”

After Greene filed, Fowler and her staff researched Greene on the Internet because they had never heard of him . They did not turn up information about his obscenity charge, she said.

From the Post and Courier:

Fowler won’t seek 3rd term

Some Democrats, including state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, say the party has learned from the Greene nomination.(jbjd note:  Ms. Cobb-Hunter is black; according to her state government biography, she was a licensed social worker.

“This has been a teachable moment,” Cobb-Hunter said. “In hindsight, of course, some vetting should have been done. Is the Democratic Party responsible? Of course, we are. We fell down on the job.”

Cobb-Hunter said Greene’s opponent, Rawl, also shares in the blame for failing to run an aggressive enough campaign to raise his name identification with voters. And Democratic primary voters share some blame too, Cobb-Hunter said, for blindly choosing a candidate without knowing much about either Greene or Rawl.

“We have a lot of people who are not paying attention to politics, who are uninformed about candidates and who don’t do a lot of homework on their own to see what people are about,” she said. “People didn’t know either one of these guys. This was not just a case of black folks voting for Alvin Greene because his name sounds black. I’ve talked to white people who voted for him as well.”

(“jbjd” readers, what do you think this state representative means by pointing out, black folks who voted for Mr. Greene could not have done so just because they thought his name sounded black since white people voted for him, too?  Is she saying, since white folks voted for this candidate, this means, his name is not obviously black (because recognizing he is black, whites would not have voted for him)?  Or that the fact he is black could not have accounted for all of his black votes since whites also voted for him (and whites who vote for black candidates don’t do so just because they are black)?  Did it ever occur to her, both blacks and whites voted for Mr. Greene just because he is black?  Or worse,  that she is only validating the free choice of black voters, ill-conceived as she finds their choice to be, by pointing out, at least they are not the only dumb voters in her state?)

Interestingly, the coverage of the Greene affair I find most newsworthy – this preceded Ms. Fowler’s recently announced prospective resignation – was this piece published last month in the New York Times.

Back on June 17, the New York Times reported that the Executive Committee of the SCDP rejected the appeal filed by Mr. Greene’s opponent, Vic Rawl, who charged  voting irregularities had tainted the process and could only be cured by a new primary election.

State Party in S. Carolina Rejects Bid for New Vote

State Senator Robert Ford, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for governor, called Mr. Rawl’s protest “just pure nonsense.”

“People didn’t know Alvin Greene from Adam’s housecat, and they didn’t know Vic Rawl from Adam’s housecat,” Mr. Ford said in a telephone interview. “They are picking on an innocent veteran who doesn’t have any clout to look out for himself.”

Mr. Greene and Mr. Ford were the only black statewide candidates in the primary.

Since his victory, Mr. Greene has been reluctant to speak to reporters.

But Mr. Ford, who said he met Mr. Greene while filing to run, offered insight into the motivation behind his bid for the nomination. He said Mr. Greene told him he had looked to the office of Senator Jim DeMint, the Republican incumbent, for help in dealing with his disability, but had received no response.

Mr. Ford said Mr. Greene had told him: “Senator, I’m not interested in campaigning. I’m just trying to send a message to DeMint: I don’t like to be mistreated.”

Hmmph.  A citizen inspired to activism after being mistreated by a public official. Great concept.  I wish Mr. Greene’s idea would catch on, and that SC  voters, black and white, who have tolerated continued attempts by the SCDP to undermine their electoral franchise, and who have petitioned AG Henry McMaster for redress and been ignored; would finally arise as one fed up electorate on the steps of the state capital in Columbia and proclaim, “We don’t like to be mistreated,” too!

And bring the press.


  1. jbjd says:

    Faithful reader Dawn from SC sent me the news of Ms. Fowler’s resignation, certain I already knew. I did not! As many of you already know, I am a one-person operation here. Perfecting each article can take several hours, leaving little time for perusing the internet for timely news. I have come to rely on readers like you to forward any items of interest. Even if I cannot use the information immediately; this does not mean, it won’t show up on a future post. We are an interactive blog here; the more I know, the more I teach.

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-this is Hector Maldonado running in Missouri-you will laugh when you get to the part about the Sec of State rquest from him and their response.

    Michelle: Wow! This is exactly what needs to happen! Even if a SoS legally exercises discretion, for example, trying to maintain the integrity of the ballot by making sure the candidate is qualified for the job, this lawful exercise of discretion cannot be made in an unlawful way. That is, she cannot compel only candidates from the opposing party to prove they are qualified for the job before allowing their names on the ballot.

    But now, I have 3 (three) questions. First, does MO law require candidates to be qualified for the office in order to get their names on the ballot? Second, did Ms. Carnahan produce for the record evidence she is a citizen? Third, is the nominee for POTUS from the major political party entitled to appear on the ballot?

    BTW, Ms. Carnahan was the SoS for both the 2008 primary and general election.

    This is fabulous. Thank you for sending this to me. ADMINISTRATOR

    (Update: I checked the MO law; guess what? In 2008, candidates for POTUS for the major political parties had to be Constitutionally qualified for the job! CALLING ALL MISSOURIANS! Contact me ASAP, please, so that I can draft a citizen complaint for the “Show-Me” state!)

  3. Michelle says:

    jbjd-so glad you liked it, I’m beginning to think like you, I thank you for the training. Looks like my litanies and rosaries for you are starting to break things loose-I hope and pray, tonight at Church more litanies and rosaries. Everyone is trying to make Mr. Maldonado go viral. One of the many things that shocked me on this tape was their demand that Mr. Maldonado show proof of citizenship and it would be recorded/and now a matter of public record and he asked them for same, in other words if Mr. Maldonado has his material as a matter of public record, there should be in the state of Missouri the same public record on Obama….silence.
    jbjd-anything for you, hope lots of citizens of MO respond, Mr. Maldonado sure got a ball rolling.

    Michelle: Unbelievable. I just posted on a MO cite.

    This could be big; but it all depends. First, I need to do a little more checking regarding the comparison/contrast between Moldanado and Obama. For example, why did the SoS go directly to him seeking verification of U.S. citizenship, when he is the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate; and not to the Party? Plus, remember, when the law entitles the qualified nominee for POTUS from the major political party to appear on the ballot; no corresponding law requires anyone to check. This leads us back to the citizen complaints of election fraud. I will get back to you; again! ADMINISTRATOR

  4. azgo says:

    Ah! …I see you found MO as an applicable state. FANTASTIC!
    ALL MISSOURIANS, please check with jbjd as she needs your help to draft a citizen complaint.

    Not to throw another wrench in with your busy work. …How about Utah as another applicable state.




    A presidential candidate gains access to the Utah ballot per Utah law (UCA 20A-9-803). Candidates for President of the United States who are affiliated with the Democratic Party and who wish to participate in the primary shall: (1) file a declaration of candidacy, in person or via a designated agent, with the Utah State Office of the Lieutenant Governor, State Capitol Complex, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, 801/538-1041, between Monday, July 2, 2007 and 5 p.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007; (2) identify on that declaration that the candidate is seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination; (3) provide a letter from the Chair of the Utah State Democratic Committee certifying that the candidate may participate as a candidate for the Democratic Party in the presidential primary election; and (4) pay the filing fee of $500. There are no provisions in Utah law for write-in candidates or for “uncommitted” to appear on the primary ballot as a choice for voters.

    To obtain a letter of certification from the Chair of the Utah State Democratic Committee that allows the candidate to participate in the presidential preference primary, Presidential candidates must: (1) send a letter with the candidate’s authentic signature stating that they are a candidate for President of the United States and that they wish to participate in Utah’s Presidential preference primary; (2) certify the name, address and telephone numbers of their authorized representative(s) to the State Democratic Chair; (3) submit a written statement indicating specific steps to encourage full participation in Utah’s delegate selection process, including, but not limited to, procedures by which persons may file as candidates for delegate or alternate; and (4) affirm in writing that a) they shall not seek the nomination of another political party in Utah during the same election cycle, b) that they shall be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President, and c)meet the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any laws of the United States to be eligible to serve in the office sought. The Chair can be contacted at the Utah State Democratic Committee, 455 South 300 East Suite 301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, 801/328-1212.

    – Utah state law:

    Utah Code
    Title 20A Election Code
    Chapter 9 Candidate Qualifications and Nominating Procedures
    Section 201 Declarations of candidacy — Candidacy for more than one office or of more than one political party prohibited with exceptions — General filing and form requirements — Affidavit of impecuniosity.

    20A-9-201. Declarations of candidacy — Candidacy for more than one office or of more than one political party prohibited with exceptions — General filing and form requirements — Affidavit of impecuniosity.
    (1) Before filing a declaration of candidacy for election to any office, a person shall:
    (a) be a United States citizen; and
    (b) meet the legal requirements of that office.

    jbjd, keep up the G-R-E-A-T W-O-R-K exposing just what happened in the 2008 election. The mystery is being further and further untangled!

    azgo: Hey, buddy! Thanks for giving me more work to do. I have to check on Utah; what section of the Code you have sent might only relate to filing for the primary. This would present the same situation as, say, NH or AZ. You will recall, in those states, the candidate registers directly with the election officials, swearing s/he is eligible for the job; but no requirement of eligibility exists to get printed on the ballot. As you know, we cannot prove BO committed ballot fraud where he is the only person swearing eligibility. But know what’s funny? We cannot prove BO committed fraud because there are no records. But since there are no records, we can establish the fraud committed by the party! ADMINISTRATOR

  5. TeakWoodKite says:

    Excellent Post!

    No records in AZ and NH or?
    Interesting point about ones attention transiting to a place where tone’s focus is commanded to the narrow points rather than the stream of current news.

    I started this journey as a sailor, yet finding safe harbor is elusive. Thanks for the use of your lee shore.

    It is a fun challenge to maintain both the big and small picture concurrently and not loose sight of the event horizon in the attempt.
    I see several possibilities that would raise the bar on BO and the vetting of being Constitutionally and lawfully “entitled” to be on the ballot in any particular state for POTUS.
    For one, Obama’s DOJ’s civil rights, election and immigration divisions will not being doing any yo-mens work, any time soon. Add to that, in my humble opinion, BO is suing Arizona over it’s exclusive citation of federal law within SP1070(?), in fact is suing “himself”.
    I have no idea how Tribe called him “brilliant”. (referring to your recent fine post)
    With this condition of electoral fraud we are living with,
    if any particular state AG throws down the glove and is joined, it would be a day to tell the grandkids about.

    Is there a difinitive resource on current election laws in all 50 states? I see a spreadsheet with headings of “does” and Doesn’t require”.

    TWK: Thank you, as always.

    Wow, great points. I am so pleased you find this a safe shore. Others have suggested that while the information posted here of the fraud that occurred might be unsettling; at the same time, it is reassuring to know what went on. If you think this information is confusing now, wait till you see the emails going back and forth between azgo and me, in advance of posting!

    I cited the states of AZ and NH because in both states, the law requires the candidate seeking to register to get onto the ballot in a party primary, to swear eligibility for the office. And BO swore in both NH and AZ he was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS. I want to emphasize, in both NH and AZ, the candidate registered for the primary ballot directly with the designated election official, and not through the political party. However, no law in either state specifically requires candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be eligible for the job. Thus, the only ‘fraud’ that can be said to have occurred; is the candidate lied about eligibility. Yet, with no definitive documentary evidence of ineligibility; an allegation of such fraud cannot be sustained. (The burden in cases of fraud is on the petitioner, as it should be.) But in either of those states, this absence of documentation of eligibility for office would not be a bar to charging election fraud viz a viz the ballot, in the following circumstance. If registration could be achieved through the party, and the party swore the candidate was eligible then, the party could be attacked for committing fraud. Just like the scenarios detailed in the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in applicable states, swearing to state officials something is true, before ascertaining this is true, to get a candidate’s name on the ballot, constitutes fraud. And this holds true whether the state has a law requiring only the names of eligible candidates onto the ballot! Here, see if this makes sense.

    These statements represent 2 (two) different conditions involving eligibility which are found in state laws.

    1. All candidates who register for the primary must swear they are qualified for the office.
    2. Only the names of candidates qualified for office may be printed on the ballot.

    See how these are 2 (two) different conditions? Usually, we only ensnare political parties in the second condition. Because usually the party does not certify the eligibility of the candidate for placement in the primary ballot but only in the general election ballot. Know which state is a prominent exception to this limitation? SC! There, candidates must register for the primary ballot through the party! Plus, in SC, the law says, to get its candidates onto the ballot, the party must Certify they are qualified for the office! That’s why we charge D’s in SC twice: first, for false swearing of eligibility to get onto the primary ballot; and then repeating the lie for the general election!

    As for a comprehensive listing of state ballot requirements, well, I have found, any similar ‘comprehensive’ lists are not worth the web page on which they are posted. And laws/rules/regulations can change at any time. (However, if you wanted to lay out a grid for such information…)

  6. TeakWoodKite says:

    While I absorb your response fully, am I correct in thinking that there are not too many individuals around with a walking encyclopedia of election law in the 50 states and territories in thier head?

    I was thinking more along the lines of a database, where one could query for outcomes. Awhile back, you posted several wonderfully orginized spreadsheets which got me thinking. What would the field sets (field=legal parameter) look like in a database? I mention it because, as you pointed out, this effort is beyond one person to wield.

    I do not have clear picture yet, of the conditional attributes a person of your backround and efforts would find appealing to have at your finger tips, but the structure of it is a worthwhile endevour. Over time, this DB could yield useful relational insights. Somewhat like findlaw but specific to electioneering activity.

    Just trying to make sense out a very byzentine electoral reality that we live in.

    TWK: Know what is close to what you are talking about? (You are going to hate this…) The DNC sends out to the state parties, its request for the written delegate selection plan. As a part of that plan are the normal categories, such as outreach. But there is also a requirement to send in any particular state laws regarding getting names on the ballot, and the like. (azgo sent me the links to these plans! He loves doing extra research and then dumping these ingredients on me so that I can bake the cake.) So, the DNC Services Corporation has such spread sheets of individual state laws, I am sure. (Recall that since this is a private club, these records are, generally, not ‘discoverable.’) At some point, maybe this would be a worthwhile project. (Who would be the market for this type of information? I am having enough trouble paying the bills as it is, dedicating my life, gratis, to this blog!) ADMINISTRATOR

    • TeakWoodKite says:

      Thanks jbjd for the feedback. I knows whats ya mean about them bills. Still you do an bang up job with the blog. Much respect. 🙂

      TWK: You are welcome; and thank you. I am proud of all of the good work produced on the “jbjd” blog, by all of us. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: