Conservative scorecard sponsors rank lower than most liberal Senator on own cherry-picked benchmark

The annual scorecard from the Rapid City group Citizens for Liberty, which one conservative Legislator has previously referred to as “extremely distorted” has made it’s return before the primary.  And as usual, it’s a bag of cherry-picked silliness.

Why do I say this? Because while they’re claiming these were THE conservative issues Legislators should be scored on, the Citizens for Liberty group was busy failing their own test.  While they ranked Senators based on Senate Bill 200, on the resettlement of refugees…

… curiously, they were nowhere to be found.

And when it came time to weigh in on the abortion issue they ranked Senators on…

It looks like everyone but Citizens for Liberty were there defending the rights of the unborn….

How about the freedom of speech at Universities?

Nope. Another big fat goose egg for the Citizens for Liberty.

In fact, I found that they thought only 3 of the 26 bills were used on the card important enough to show up and testify on.

(While they didn’t show up for Immigration, Abortion or Freedom of Speech, Senate Bill 150 was important enough for them to have two people there on.)

Which if I’m catching them all.. if we rank them on showing up, they’ve got a score of about 11.5% for their own scorecard, ranking them lower than the lowest ranked Senator.

Not that such hypocrisy is uncommon for Citizens for Liberty.

And lest we forget that members of the conservative group were part of the signature gathering team to place the ballot measure for the increase in cigarette taxes to fund tech schools on the ballot this past year:

Hmm… Failing their own scorecard and working to increasing taxes. They should probably pick their issues a little better next year.

And bother to show up, if they’re going to claim to set the benchmark for conservatism.

15 Replies to “Conservative scorecard sponsors rank lower than most liberal Senator on own cherry-picked benchmark”

  1. anon

    I’m surprised the Citizens for Liberty didn’t include HB1199 on the scorecard. HB1199 prohibited collective bargaining in our higher education system. It passed the House and failed in the Senate 16-18. Oh wait, Stace and Lance took the pro-union stance on that one. What was I thinking!?

    1. Anonymous

      That is because neither one of them is as conservative as they would like us to believe.

  2. Lincoln County Delegate

    I find scorecards from single issue advocacy groups to be more effective and helpful. NRA and SDRTL scorecards impact my vote, Citizens for Liberty not so much.

  3. Anonymous

    You are ABSOLUTELY correct. It is insane that so-called conservatives would vote against that bill. And equally insane that a so-called conservative group wouldn’t include it on their scorecard.

    1. Anonymous

      My apologies, I meant to post this comment in response to the above comment about HB 1199, the collective bargaining bill

      1. Sioux Falls Republican

        Insane that Constitutional conservatives would oppose efforts to infringe Americans from peacefully assembling and petitioning their government for redress of grievances?

        1st Amendment
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        HB1199
        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit collective bargaining by employees of the Board of Regents.
        BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
        Section 1. That chapter 13-49 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
        The collective bargaining provisions set forth in chapters 3-18 and 60-9A do not apply to any person employed by the Board of Regents or employed by an institution under the authority of the Board of Regents.
        Section 2. That § 3-18-1 be amended to read:
        3-18-1. The words “public employees” as used in this chapter shall mean any person holding a position by appointment or employment in the government of the State of South Dakota or in the government of any one or more of the political subdivisions thereof, or in the service of the public schools, or in the service of any authority, commission, or board, or any other branch of
        the public service. The term does not include:

        (1) Elected officials and persons appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices and members of any board or commission;
        (2) Administrators except elementary and secondary school administrators, administrative officers, directors, or chief executive officers of a public employer or major divisions thereof as well as chief deputies, first assistants, and any other public employees having authority in the interest of the public employer to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other public employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or to effectively recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment;
        (3) Students working as part-time employees twenty hours per week or less;
        (4) Temporary public employees employed for a period of four months or less;
        (5) Commissioned and enlisted personnel of the South Dakota National Guard;
        (6) Judges and employees of the unified court system;
        (7) Legislators and the full-time and part-time employees of the legislature or any state agency that statutorily is directed by the legislative branch; or
        (8) Any person employed by the Board of Regents or employed by an institution under the authority of the Board of Regents.
        This section does not preclude employees described in subdivisions (1) to (7) (8), inclusive, from joining professional, noncollective bargaining organizations. http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=HB1199H.htm&Session=2018&Version=House&Bill=1199

        Republicans are for personal responsibility. Not sure how CFL is responsible for these legislators voting records. Al Novstrup is a former Democrat with a less than conservative record. CFL scores these people on their voting records, what exactly does this blog use to declare people “conservative?”

          1. Sioux Falls Republican

            If you can’t defeat the argument, distract, distract, distract!

            All my points remain salient. Your ridiculous comment not withstanding.

            Not one post disputing the bills listed, or CFL’s appropriate links to the Constitutions or GOP platforms justifying their positions.

    1. Blunt Archeologist

      Well “Sioux Falls Republican” what is your real name”. Unless your parents are fond of unique names. Like mine.

  4. Fiddle de de

    It seems to be common knowledge that Senator Nelson picks items for the scorecard based on his own votes and views. It is very obvious that Citizens for Liberty votes of HB1184 on CAFOs sides with the left. That one was picked because “somebody” dislikes confinement units. Guess who that would be. The scorecard is indeed not credible.

  5. Pingback: Sen. Stace Nelson and a couple others form “Conservative Caucus” based on cherry-picked scorecard – South Dakota War College