Hot off the Press, House Bill 1259 is set to eliminate much of the purpose for State Political Party Conventions:
HB1259P by Pat Powers on Scribd
The short version is that it eliminates party nominations for the offices of attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, and public utilities commissioners.
For offices that many candidates struggle to raise $50,000 – $100,000 to run an abbreviated race after the nomination, this could put them on footing against gubernatorial contests in having to gather a couple thousand signatures, and campaigning up to a year or more ahead of time… or does it?
While it takes away the party nomination process, it really doesn’t give anything to replace the nominations with. I’d expect it would be done via petition, but the bill doesn’t really spell that or any process out.
It would be great for Republicans, as it’s doubtful many Dems lacking personal wealth who have to be talked into a race at convention would jump in to running that far ahead of time. But, for both political parties, it would cause a lot of change in their mission and timing.
I suspect Republicans would move to a caucus system ahead of the primary, similar to other states.
But would it be good for the South Dakota? I’m not sure what problem it’s trying to solve.
NO on HB 1259…..sounds like an attempt to undercut the party.
By the way what did the constitutional candidates raise? when do those numbers come out?
I would be ok with the Lt Gov running WITH the Governor candidate and be more inclined to eliminate that, that is the only thing left in the bill.
It gives us insight into who the nominees would pick and their judgment.
Horrible bill.
Best news I’ve heard in a long time.
I’d assume the “problem” the bill is trying to solve is the “problem” of South Dakota voters having the option to support minor-party candidates.
The Libertarian/Constitution Party lawsuit scheduled for trial next week argues that requiring some candidates, but not others, to stand for a primary election is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This looks like a last ditch effort to derail the lawsuit and continue excluding most minor-party candidates from the ballot.
I’m not surprised Mickelson’s name is on this bill, but I’m profoundly surprised and disappointed to see Rhoden’s and Schoenfish’s.
It’s all about taking power from the volunteers and the workers and giving it to the elites and big money.
Every office will be controlled by the governor.
Barnett, Haeder, Brunner, Nelson, Fiegen and Hanson and Sattgast would all need the governor’s backing to raise any money.
It’s an assault in the people. Lederman ha work to do on this one.
If that is indeed their reasoning, it’s still a bad bill.
Better to simply allow minor-parties to select their candidates at their own conventions.
Taxpayer-financed primaries have always been an immoral power grab. Forcing them on parties that don’t want them is even worse.
Why can’t parties decide how they want to nominate candidates? I could care less if it’s a convention or a petition and primary.
Let each party choose. Dems decided to allow independents to vote in their primaries.
No it’s trying to prevent people like Ravnsborg or Russell from winning a nomination. Mickelson and Johnson think the party elites with big $$$ should be choosing who the nominees are not the party leaders who volunteer.
A bill creating one Office and One Secretary from the current offices of Treasurer and School and Public Lands would make much more sense in my very limited introspection.
Charlie,
This has been debated and analyzed for decades. And, each time it goes nowhere. Some is inertia. Some is political. But in the end it always comes down to divergence of skill set (which is conceptually solved by your suggestion but there is still the problem of superior/subordinate and whose judgment prevails) and Appropriate separation of power and inherent conflict of interest (which is conceptually created by your suggestion).
Twenty-five years ago, I came down on the side of the superior/subordinate and conflict of interest were more significant to a very small expenditure savings (not even $100K back then). What was convincing to me is Treasurer is like a banker and Commissioner a farm and ranch land property manager.
Very good analogy Troy.
Troy you make a good point in that the actual savings would be minimal as under Secretary’s would need to be hired.
Maybe there is another underlying reason for HB 1259 which we are not privy to like making sure Governor DD has something to veto.
Charlie, what was your reasoning for the first post then? I get you are a great guy and all, but after Troy said his piece, you totally changed your tune. Just trying to see what sticks??
Original thought was to have less people needing convention approval if somehow the framers of 1259 found the whole slate to be too lengthy of a weekend process. Guess I didn’t say that. My bad.
I’d love seeing an LRC fiscal study on just what savings would occur in joining the two offices into one.
In going a step further if we look at how many banks manage land by renting it out and knowing many attorneys place land in trust out for bids I assume land management and banking and lawyers go together very well in being good keepers of the land.
Get that fiscal note folks.
This bill is the end of political parties and organization as we know it.
Charlie,
I knew that was your original thought as it was in this thread about the convention, etc. I just wanted you to know it has been looked at many times formally and informally. When I was part of a one such look, I was pro-merger (60% for) going in and anti-merger (80%) coming out. Just not enough upside (almost all expenditure upside of which little is general fund) against the downside (decision-making and potential financial return aspects).
No way auditor, treasurer, school and public lands raise $100k for a primary.
We will have races with $20k spent and no one knows who we are nominating.
It’s a good way to get Hubbell in a constitutional office if no one knows who they are nominating.
Gordon Howie might have a chance to become auditor.
Great way to nominate a weak republican for AG and allow the democrats to nominate a wealthy attorney with money to burn. This is good for people like Brendan Johnson.
Charlie,
Exactly. Banks don’t manage the land. They contract out its management and do so for a short time. The Commissioner is charged with stewarship which in some cases has already been over 125 years.
You’re example reminded me of how big the difference in skill set and perspective is. Treasurer is often managing assets with maturities of days. Commissioner is always thinking in terms of decades.