Congratulations to new Speaker Pro Tempore Steve Haugaard

I got busy working on things yesterday, and forgot to acknowledge that an election was held in conjunction with the budget address yesterday.

State Representative Steve Haugaard was elected to serve as the House Speaker Pro Tempore to replace Don Haggar, who resigned from the legislature to serve as the Executive Director for the South Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

If Steve continues to serve past the next election, he is in line to be the next Speaker of the House.

Congratulations Representative Haugaard!

24 Replies to “Congratulations to new Speaker Pro Tempore Steve Haugaard”

  1. Anonymous

    Hats off to Haugard! Word on the street is Jackley was working the phones pretty hard to elect Haugard’s liberal oponent, representative Stevens.

    Reply
    1. Anon

      If true what a dumb move by Jackley. Why get involved in a Speaker Pro Tem race? Especially one you don’t know if you are going to be on the winning side.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Everyone has their faves.

        Not surprised that Jackley, Mickelson and Daugaard would want Stevens. I’m not surprised Noem would want Rhoden because they have been friends for years. They have to work with the next speaker. They want an ally.

        I just had a couple legislative friends tell me Krebs told them Haugaard would be a strong choice for speaker before they voted.

        The same two also told me that Dusty wanted Stevens because they support each other. I’m not surprised and again I see nothing wrong with any of this. Stevens is a great guy and a good legislator.

        Turns out the Noem and Jackley duo will get someone right down the middle who’s honest and fair.

        I’m not opposed to having anyone get into the mix. It’s very different than when Daugaard influenced by appointments.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          I haven’t heard a single legislator say Kristi lobbied for any of the candidates. Everyone knows Kristi and Rhoden are friends, but I haven’t heard a single legislator claim she lobbied for him or anyone else. Several legislators have mentioned being upset with Jackley for lobbying for Stevens.

          Reply
    1. David Barranco

      We enjoyed the opportunity to dine with Speaker Haugaard recently. Aside from politics, he’s a patriot and a true gentleman. I’m convinced he will serve the citizens of South Dakota (and our state’s legislature) with honor and distinction. Congratulations!

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Two issues came to the fore here. One is good for the legislature, the other is a threat to it.

    1) Haugard is a good choice and will do well in the role.
    2) If Marty as a candidate will interfere in the selection of legislative leadership, what will he do as governor? If he supports the more liberal choice when a conservative is available, how will he govern?

    Reply
  3. Springer

    I am undecided between Jackley and Norm, but Jackley has some explaining to do. I heard Haugard on issues before and he is a true conservative so I would like to know Jackley’s reasoning here.

    Reply
  4. Steve Sibson

    So could Jackley and Cory Heidelberger be on the same page? Here is Cory’s reaction:

    “Rep. Haugaard will bring to the podium the sort of rabid culture-war paranoia that that makes him less likely to listen to complaints from women about abuses of power and more likely to listen to foreign, fact-free Muslim/Marxist-conspiracy theories branding vast swaths of our neighbors as enemies.”

    Cory Heidelberger and Taneeza Islam are proof positives that Haugaard’s Muslim/Marxist conspiracy is factual and all too alive here is South Dakota. I wonder how Marty is doing with the terrorism charge against the guy who showed up at a Christian conference in April saying be scared, be terrified?

    Haugaard was definitely the right choice if Heidelberger doesn’t like it.

    Reply
  5. Troy Jones

    Personally, I think the ideological differences (real or perceived) between these candidates (or most others) are over-emphasized with regard to the ultimate difference we experience in legislation. What is critical is the Speaker’s ability to “run the House” and keep it running smoothly.

    And, from what I hear, Hauguard will be quite capable in this regard. Congratulations future Speaker Pro Tempore (technically the office isn’t assumed until the entire House is in session and the members vote).

    Reply
  6. The Sage

    There are more questions than answers in this story.

    Were Haugaard and Stevens the only candidates for Speaker Pro Tem, or did Rhoden also run for the position? Did Jackley really push for Stevens? Did Noem really push for Rhoden?

    Reply
  7. Troy Jones

    Post above: “Several legislators have mentioned being upset with Jackley for lobbying for Stevens.”

    I think such legislators must be snowflakes. Decision makers get contacted by interested parties before they make decisions. Its in the job description. If they can’t handle lobbying, they are in the wrong job.

    I couldn’t care less Jackley advocated for someone and Noem didn’t.

    Reply
  8. Mark N.

    I agree with Troy on this. This is politics. People run for things, and people campaign on behalf of others. There is nothing wrong with that. I also question the veracity of the anonymous commenter who cited “several legislators.” Do these legislators have names and are they willing to verify the statement? If not, I assume that this is all made up rumors designed to influence the gubernatorial primary.

    Rep. Haugaard is a good pick and I congratulate him on his election.

    Reply
  9. #someareweak

    Mark and Troy, your comments are EXACTLY true. isn’t it funny when you read people like Frye-Mueller in the paper reference “several legislators were, intimidated, coerced and bullied” – she (and others around her) are the walking definitions of snowflakes. They cant handle being LOBBIED because they feel they’re being bullied. But when you think you have all the answers and you are the resident expert in defining conservatism, i guess any opinion contrary to yours cuts a little deep.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.