From KCCR radio, State Senator Stace Nelson is apparently trying to mislead the state’s media over what happened when his dissent entry in the Journal was referred back for emendation:
Nelson and Russell both felt the parties in the lawsuit should have recused themselves from the vote as a matter of principle. Both men then entered a dissenting report into the Senate Journal which chronicled their opposition.
Nelson now says there is a proposal being considered to remove the entry from the Journal. Nelson personally was not a fan of IM22, but recognizes there were people that voted for it.
The request to strike the dissent from the Senate Journal is still under consideration. A ruling could be determined by the end of the 2017 session.
The problem with what Nelson is saying about his dissenting entry being removed? Either he doesn’t understand it, or he’s wilfully misleading the media.
I wrote about this a few days ago; As the rule that permits a dissent to be filed – the same one Nelson invoked – states:
1-10. Dissent against an act or resolution. Any two members of a house may dissent or protest in respectful language against any act or resolution which they think injurious to the public or to any individual and have the reason for their dissent or protest entered upon the journal. However, if an objection is made that the language of the dissent or protest is not respectful, a majority of the house may refer the dissent or protest back to the dissenting or protesting members for emendation.
Solely because the language in the dissent was not considered respectful, and a majority of the legislature agreed through voting on it, the dissent was sent back to the dissenting members for “emendation,” or as President of the Senate Matt Michels noted, it’s a fancy word for amendment.
So literally, if a dissent isn’t filed, it’s all on Nelson. He can try to rewrite the tale all he wants and ignore simple fact as he misleads the press. But the record and the rules are clear: it has been returned to him to rewrite the language. Happens in the legislature all the time.
Quite a different tale from the one he’s telling to the media.
I am confused.
1) Are Nelson and Russell withdrawing their original dissent? Is the majority dropping their sending the dissent back for emendation?
2) I’m not sure I understand Nelson’s point (he is not a fan of IM22 but people voted for it). So, he is willing to defer his best judgment on the matter to that of the people? Is that how he approaches other issues too?
I’d point out that all of his district all voted against it. So, I’m not sure who he’s playing to.
Rumor is he and Russell will team up against state corruption with a one two punch of Nelson for Governor and Russell for AG. They will beat the drum loudly.
Ravnsborg is the only person standing in Russell’s way. Noem and Jackley might be a bigger obstacle for Nelson but you only need a third of the votes in a three way.
Which is why supporters of Noem and Jackley need to refrain from beating up on each other.
Got that? They’re both wonderful, upstanding, qualified candidates. And don’t any of you forget it.
Geez, since you put it that way I’ll do whatever you say.
You don’t win people to your opinion by ordering them to do something; it’s very off-putting, and even if you may be correct people will have an adverse reaction.
I wonder if Stace could get 35-36% of the vote for governor in the gop primary. I bet his 17% is with him no matter what – like trumps. Can Stace strategically expand his following double and actually win the nomination?
No. He can not.
Ravnsborg has the nomination locked up. Haven’t you talked to him lately?
Rumor from another source or one you’ve started?
Lance is a legitimate, and potentially strong contender for AG.
Nelson for Governor? I’m not sure what he could run on. While he can get signs up, his organization and campaigning on a statewide level quickly fall apart after that.
(Oops. Forgot my name -PP)
Are you kidding me…these 2 guys would be better off staying in the state senate, while they are a joke and ineffective there they have no chance of winning.
Russell…have you read the opinion from the state supreme court where they gave him a public reprimand? If not everyone should…that ends his campaign before it starts. Then he gets thrown out of the caucus when he is in the house. He has no chance.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-court/1564780.html
Nelson for Governor, hahahahahahaha He could run as a Democrat as all he ever does is attack Republicans, stand with Democrats (Weiland) and can say NO a lot without any positive agenda, except that is when times get tough then you will find him in the restroom.
What is interesting to me is the obvious polarization of the similar party to these two Legislators knowing they are polar opposites.
Lance is thoughtful and speaks slowly and quietly to his audience while Stace hollers everything he says as if scolding a child. Having served with both these guys I would have to say Lance being the primer and Stace the gunpowder their projectiles are not moving too far downrange.
I think you are confusing their election results with your own, former Representative Hoffman.
Russell would erode most of Ravnsborgs support. I’m surprised Jackley doesn’t have anyone lined up to run. Most likely he backs Russell.
Correct. I don’t think Russell has ever lost a race. Ravnsborg has never won a race and he doesn’t have prosecutorial experience.
My understanding is he has prosecuted cases so that has been debunked Mr. Anonymous. As for Russell being dominate, i wouldn’t put all my eggs in one basket on him. I don’t think he is as dominate as you think.
When was Mr Ravnsborg ever a prosecuting attorney? Please cite the office, or is this fake news?
(That’s not me, btw.)
Nelson’s District voted against it 51 to 49. I vote for it so,no, not everybody in District 19 voted against it
I don’t care who runs in primaries. If they think they can win or have something to say and want to run, go for it. In the end, the collective will of voters generally gets it right and when they don’t, the system is patient enough for a correction to be made in the future.
Sen. Nelson crying the heck you say….never seen a Marine cry and whine as much as he does…
MAN UP!
As you submit this anonymously….
Let me try and get this discussion back on topic. What exactly was disrespectful in Nelson’s and Russell’s dissent and protest?
I guess the Senators are probably overreacting. Few if any people even historians will go back and check it out. I’m going to say that if Nelson did something really bad then they should have objected on the spot. Otherwise bringing this back up weeks after the IM 22 repeal only gives the media more reason to talk about how Nelson and Russell took the side of the people and they are being persecuted for it… Peters should leave it alone.
If I recall, it was either the next or the second legislative day after the dissention. NOT a week, and certainly not weeks.
ok. I’m misinformed then.
Something fishy here.
The senate passed HB1069 on Feb 1, and they apparently filed their dissenting report immediately http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?Session=2017&Bill=1069
Your article mocking Russell & Nelson on Peters’ motion was on Feb 14. That means the whole Senate approved of the dissenting report in the journal as respectful, for at least a week.
Which leads to two questions:
What is disrespectful about the dissenting report that they unanimously approved of in the Journal for a week?
Why are you claiming this article about this is from KCCR? This is actually Dan Peters article from KSOO in a Sioux Falls?!
This response is fishy and the questions are goofy.
I think the fishy thing is the SDGOP Establishment doing a bait and switch. I still have not heard what exactly was so disrespectful.
Steve,
You do realize when you say the “GOP establishment” you are referring to all of the State Senators except Nelson & Russell and the Democrats. When Nelson/Russell and their liberal comrades tried to use the rules to their advantage, they shouldn’t be shocked when the rules come back at them.
I posted the following the first time I heard of the protest (before leadership responded) when Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR) was attempting to use rules to delay or defeat a bill.
Anyway, Sen. Storm Thurmond (R-SC) was the President Pro Temp and presiding. After the second or third time Hatfields efforts were defeated, Hatfield stood for another motion, Thurmond said in his dry Southern drawl (my best recollection): “Before I recognize my good friend, the good Senator from Oregon, I want to remind the body that I am the judge and jury and am willing to be the executioner. (Long pause as he stared at Hatfield). Thank you Good Senator for taking your seat. Do I hear a motion to move the question?”
“You do realize when you say the “GOP establishment” you are referring to all of the State Senators except Nelson & Russell and the Democrats.”
Troy, I don’t see it that way. And in addition, the Democrats have an Establishment of their own. We are taught that the two establishments are always in opposition, but in fact that is a false dichotomy. Both establishments believe government is the solution. During the last two sessions both Establishment parties joined to increase fees and taxes, and it is still not enough.
Steve,
1) No matter how you see it, the fact and reality are the same: 100% of the Republicans (minus Nelson & Russell) sent it back for emendation. If the GOP establishment is everyone but Nelson and Russell, being outside the establishment must be lonely.
2) But, I guess not so lonely since Nelson and Russell were joined by 100% of the Democrats. Does that make them part of the Democrat establishment?
The liberals in both parties will come together once the issue becomes increasing taxes. The Democrats are also part of the corruption, but refuse to see it. By proving that statement, I am no longer welcome at Madville.
Once we all stop believing that the Party is more important than principles, perhaps we can start reversing the so-called “progressive” trend.
their objection was not timely, two weeks they waited? They don’t even cite what they claim is disrespectful. Are we supposed to guess what Peters is offended by? We’re offended with her proabortion votes.
“Are we supposed to guess what Peters is offended by?”
Peters is offended by the truth. So Nelson and Russell are suppose to remove it, so the parties can continue on.