More attacks from Out-of-state group against legislators

The liberal Massachusetts group who worked with Slick Rick Weiland and spent millions to promote a measure they were warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason – is continuing to throw cash around.

Now, they’ve put out a video attacking State Senators Blake Curd and Deb Peters because Peters and Curd were part of the group that asked a court to look at the measure:

This is a really odd attack, as Peters is in her last term of office in the State Senate, as she’s termed out after this go around.  And Curd isn’t up for election for another year or so, and after a few terms, Democrats have yet to field a credible candidate against him.

This comes across as little more than a petty swipe at them by the liberal group “Represent US,” as they attempt to salvage their million dollar investment in South Dakota which went South fast as soon as it was tested by the courts.

52 thoughts on “More attacks from Out-of-state group against legislators

  1. The SD GOP needs to defend Curd!

    Why can’t the SD GOP put out a video on Facebook that talks about all the stuff wrong with IM 22 and why it is unconstitutional? The SD GOP needs to fight back against Weiland and their unethical ways.

    I will be appalled if they don’t defend Curd and the GOP legislators.

    Daugaard also needs to do more. He’s the one who wants them all to vote against IM 22. If that is the case spend some of the $1.6 million in the war chest to tell voters why this law is unconstitutional.

    Reply
  2. Jaa Dee

    “warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason –”? Really? what was that?

    Reply
      1. Jaa Dee

        “warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason”– What court struck it down and on what grounds???

        Reply
            1. Fred Deutsch

              As reported by Mercer on December 8th, Judge Barnett said “I do find it unconstitutional.”

              You’re welcome.

              Reply
              1. Jaa Dee

                BS dude, you gonna have to do better than that— You claim IM22 made its way through the courts in 2 months and was found un-Constitutional and you can NOT post ANYTHING to support that claim…

                Reply
              2. Jaa Dee

                BTW– Do you not know that Barnett basically froze the IM pending a higher court ruling… Do you not know that?

                Reply
                1. Fred Deutsch

                  Jaa Dee, you asked for a reference. I gave you the reference. I quoted the judge, referenced the news source and the date it was reported. Now it’s up to you. Learn how to use the internet to do your own research.

                  Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Legal expenses incurred as a result of an unconstitutional ballot measure should be paid by all the people who signed the petition which put it on the ballot.
    Sending each one of them a bill, even if only for a few bucks each, would make people think twice about signing these stupid things

    Reply
    1. Jaa Dee

      “Legal expenses incurred as a result of an unconstitutional ballot “– What court has found it Un–Constitutional and on what grounds?

      Reply
  4. Fred Deutsch

    So during the submission process this Massachusetts group was warned their measure was likely unconstitutional.

    They opted to ignore the warning

    They went on TV and sold the measure to South Dakotans, knowing full well the measure likely violated the constitution.

    Now that a court has ruled it unconstitutional, these folks are upset – because why? Maybe if they would have done their homework and drafted a constitutional measure we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    Instead they are lashing out blaming everyone else for their failures.

    Reply
    1. Jaa Dee

      :”Now that a court has ruled it unconstitutional”– If the did it was in secret— What court found IM22 un-Constitutional anf on what grounds?

      Reply
    2. Jaa Dee

      Here are 3 bills you sponsored, did you really think they were Constitutional? If they haven’t made it through the courts yet they WILL be found un-Constitutional just like the ones in other states…. Roe v. Wade says a woman has the Constitutional right until 20-22 weeks ..PERIOD… Tell me how your bills were NOT Un-Constitutional and why you didn’t know that.———— How about your trans/ bathroom bill…. where does it stand in the courts?

      Reply
      1. Fred Deutsch

        Jaa Dee, if it’s not too tough for you, maybe we can stay on-topic? The issue is IM-22.

        Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett ruled Initiated Measure 22 unconstitutional.

        Google it.

        Reply
        1. Jaa Dee

          Sir, since you evidently didn’t comprehend that my response was to your comments–” group was warned their measure was likely unconstitutional.”..—” knowing full well the measure likely violated the constitution.”—- Is it not a bit hypocritical for you to criticize somebody else on the Constitutionality of something? That IS on topic…..

          “Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett ruled Initiated Measure 22 unconstitutional.

          Google it.”— I am not going to waste my time, YOU made the claim, YOU post anything saying IM22 was found un-Constitutional….Can you not do that?

          Reply
          1. Fred Deutsch

            You are sure one rude person Jaa Dee. You need to learn how to communicate respectfully, even if you don’t agree with the person you are trying to have a conversation with.

            I already posted the quote to Judge Barnett in which he called IM 22 unconstitutional. See above. If you want to engage in decent conversation, do your homework – YOU are the one that asked the questions (“What court found IM22 un-Constitutional anf on what grounds?”). Learn how to use the computer to find your own answers — and learn to communicate like a human being.

            PS People that want to have a meaningful conversation use their real names. That’s called “taking responsibility” for your words.

            Reply
            1. Jaa Dee

              Yes sir, I can be harsh in the face of insulting dishonesty … Don’t give me your holier than thou deflections.. You and yours have been caught in a lie, I think that is disrespectful, and insulting—AS I said , YOU make the claim YOU prove it,

              From the Rapid City Journal Jan. 10— “a S.D. judge put the law on hold while a court challenge from a group of GOP lawmakers and others moves forward”—–

              Sir, if you can NOT substantiate your claim by posting from a reputable source something that contradicts that story and absolutely says IM22 has been found to be un-Constitutional you are a prevaricator…. CAN YOU DO THAT and prove I am an ignorant lying fool ?

              If you can NOT do as I suggested, it would be refreshing to. for once see an acknowledgement of being mistaken.– If you choose to respond , please do NOT insult me with your insults and deflections…

              Reply
  5. Troy Jones

    Here is what I really think is crazy.

    They are making this personal (targeting Curd & Peters) against two people who will not be cowed. Ultimately, it will further destroy this groups standing/credibility.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Mitch Richter is done as far as being a lobbyist in Pierre. His name will forever be associated with this group that is destroying Curd.

    Reply
      1. The Blogger Formerly Known as "Winston"

        And don’t forget that Curd has dogs, too! Just ask some Sioux Falls pedestrians about that one….

        Reply
  7. Jaa Dee

    #1— Why do you folks support corruption in government? #2– Why do you people support a tyrannical government that insults the voters and just decides it will not abide by the will of the people? Why is the measure un-constitutional and on what grounds?

    Reply
  8. Troy Jones

    Jaa Dee,

    South Dakota has a Constitution and no law may take effect in violation of the Constitution.

    However, we have given our judges the ability to make secret rulings which nobody knows about and they don’t have to provide the grounds. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Jaa Dee

      WHAT?– SIR, If you are serious, I take that as an insult— That is absurd— The claim was made in the lead-in at top “a measure they were warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason “– It has been repeated here—= PROVE IT—- Post the decision.– post a news story–post anything that shows you people are not lying

      Reply
  9. Jaa Dee

    Why do you people support government corruption? Why do you want a tyrannical government that denies the will of the voters? Why do y’all have to lie to support your opinion—-““a measure they were warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason “– If that is not a lie it is inexcusable willful ignorance;——- Unfrigginbelievable!!!

    Reply
    1. Jaa Dee

      Seems as though Mr. Deytsch has disappeared—http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/8/south-dakota-judge-puts-government-ethics-overhaul/—- Link ANYTHING saying IM22 has been declared un-constitutional/////—– In case you people don’t know— admitting mistakes indicates character and integrity… Looks like those attributes are absent on this blog..

      Reply
  10. Troy Jones

    Because I think ANYONE who vaguely pays attention knew Initiated Measure was declared unconstitutional and they were warned of it on at least one portion, I wasn’t going to enable Jaa Dee’s ignorance nor save him from himself regarding his rash insults to our state and citizens by doing the research for him.

    But, because someone was so kind to find the article for Jaa Dee to see they were warned and one of its proponents thought the warning had been heeded, I decided to follow suit. Here is an article which verifies it was deemed unconstitutional.

    http://www.newscenter1.tv/story/34110115/court-measure-on-ethics-campaign-finance-unconstitutional

    Reply
  11. Jaa Dee

    “The Court has presented a detailed Order stopping Initiated Measure 22 from taking effect based on various provisions of the South Dakota Constitution.’— Can you not understand that means UNTIL ( –““This is just a stop on the bus route,” Barnett said. “This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.”)–it is determined if it is Constitutional? — Whoever wrote that headline is as dumb as those here… There is no other news outlet that claims it was found to be Un- Constitutionl—- Barnett could not declare anything un- Constitutional without specifically laying out what parts are in fact Un-Constitutional—- What are those parts? When was the hearing before the court to determine the Constitutionality? This does NOT say it was found un-Constitutional–http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/8/south-dakota-judge-puts-government-ethics-overhaul/
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/8/south-dakota-judge-puts-government-ethics-overhaul/

    Reply
  12. Troy Jones

    Jaa Dee,

    You said to post anything that says IM22 is unconstitutional. Please go to the link I posted for you immediately above. You are welcome.

    Reply
  13. Jaa Dee

    Since we can post only one link oer comment—

    This doesn’t say it was found Un-Constitutional— http://listen.sdpb.org/post/im22-receives-preliminary-injunction

    The RCJ story yesterday didn’t–say it was found Un-Constitutional and the link you posted Headline is shown false by the story itself . It was put on hold because of questions about its Constitutionality –as Barnett said–““This is just a stop on the bus route,” Barnett said. “This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.”)— Why would say that if his were the final word,,?

    Reply
  14. Troy Jones

    Jaa Dee,

    Stop bloviating and frothing at the mouth. I am going to talk very slow.

    Judge Barnett issued an injunction stopping IM22 from going into effect as he has ruled it is in violation of the constitution. That is where it sits now.

    The advocates only remedy is to appeal to the SD Supreme Court who can over-rule in part or whole Judge Barnett’s ruling. The advocates have not made any such repeal because it doesn’t take a great attorney to see there is virtually no chance of succeeding before the Supreme Court.

    But, if you want to fund the appeal, you are free to do so but its advocates aren’t willing to do so. But, unless overturned under appeal, the Initiated Measure CAN NOT go into effect or be enforced because of the ruling of Judge Barnett IT IS in violation of the SD Constitution.

    Since you seem to have trouble grasping this, I have attached for you an article written by liberal blogger Cory Heidelberger. He attaches Judge Barnett’s ruling.

    http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/22/barnett-rules-voters-dont-trust-krebsjackley-to-enforce-campaign-finance-limits-blocks-all-of-im22/

    Reply
    1. Jaa Dee

      — “Initiated Measure 22 included a section that created a so-called Democracy Credit program, in which voters can dedicate two $50 vouchers to political candidates who choose to participate in the public funding program. The section specifically appropriates money – starting at $9 per registered voter and increasing by inflation each year – to fund the program.

      But an analyst with the Legislative Research Council who reviewed the proposed language in 2015 made a handwritten note next to the section that the language appeared to violate the South Dakota Constitution. At issue is a requirement that all appropriations must be passed by the Legislature with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.”– argusleader— Apparently that is the part that will have its Constitutionality decided by a higher court — Jackly wanted that part separated and decided on its own–Barnett refused…. The Constitutional question has nothing to do with the ethics reform section, but if a higher court(s) finds the “credit program” un–Constitutional it will most likely apply to 22 as a whole— Sobe it, the credit program idiocy should have never been part of the ethics reform parts… So, we could still have one of the most corrupt starte governments in the country…..

      Reply
  15. Jaa Dee

    “Judge Barnett issued an injunction stopping IM22 from going into effect as he has ruled it is in violation of the constitution. “– Absolute BS– Why did he say ” ““This is just a stop on the bus route,” Barnett said. “This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.”)– Why is the link you ,posted the only outlet with that head line? What were parts he ruled un-Constitutional?

    “““This is just a stop on the bus route,” Barnett said. “This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.”)”– Because–“The Court has presented a detailed Order stopping Initiated Measure 22 from taking effect based on various provisions of the South Dakota Constitution.’– “based on”– He did NOT give an opinion on Constitutionality, he handed it off to a higher court to determine..,,Can you not understand something that basic?————– That one headline you found written by a dumbass is the ONLY reputable source to use the word Un-Constitutional , it was not used in the story and Barnett never used the word— he through it to another court as fast as possible..

    Reply
  16. ymous

    Are you funding the appeal?
    Because unless someone funds the appeal, its dead.
    Why are you in full liberal freak out?
    Let the process work and quit splitting hairs. If it goes to the Supreme Court, great. If nobody appeals it, its settled.
    Troy is a pretty bright guy, just calm down.
    Bet Trump winning has really increased your medication bills.:)

    Reply
  17. Troy

    Jaa Dee,

    In Judge Barnett’s final ruling which you can read from a source you should trust (link I provided above), Barnett ruled the entire measure unconstitutional. The measure can’t be enforced by anyone unless this ruling is overruled. As of today, there is no known intent of anyone to appeal.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.