SD Dems are officially throwing in the towel today. They can’t win as Democrats so they want to remove party affiliation from the ballot.
— South Dakota GOP (@sdgop) November 9, 2015
It might be funnier if it wasn’t true. Today, a ballot measure backed by snake oil salesman ‘Slick’ Rick Weiland was turned into the Secretary of State, as noted by a press release that went out today:
Rick Knobe, Sioux Falls radio talk show host, former Mayor of Sioux Falls, and a registered Independent serving as chair of the coalition, announced that 39,182 –10,000 more than the required 27,741–were hand-delivered to Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs, today at 2:00pm.
The proposed constitutional amendment would establish an open, nonpartisan primary where voters choose individual legislative and statewide candidates based on their ideas and merit, regardless of political party. The top two candidates receiving the most votes would then compete in the general election.
“An increasing number of South Dakotans are convinced that the political status quo in Pierre and in Washington is no longer viable,” Knobe said, “and our initiative will make several positive changes, including:
1) allowing every South Dakotan to vote in primary elections, regardless of partisan registration
2) changing the South Dakota Legislature into a nonpartisan body, just as the nonpartisan initiative passed in Nebraska in 1934 has effectively done there
3) dispensing with the need for partisan caucuses, as it has in Nebraska, thus ensuring that public policy will no longer be made behind closed doors
4) allowing members of both political parties to chair legislative committees; and
5) sending a message to Washington, DC that South Dakotans are not happy with the partisan division and gridlock that has undermined our system of government.”
Of course, today’s press release conveniently didn’t have mention of Knobe’s partners, and the originators of the measure, who were quite eager to claim authorship credit as noted in a prior piece:
A Plan to Promote Nonpartisan Democracy
By Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson
.. We believe that most voters are more than ready to try something new, and our organization, TakeItBack.Org, is gathering signatures to put the South Dakota Nonpartisan Democracy Amendment on the 2016 South Dakota general election ballot. If a majority votes for the initiative, as we expect, it’s likely that other states—especially those in which ballot initiatives are allowed—will follow.
Could Congress eventually follow suit? Yes, it could, and it’s now time for the states to show the way.
Rick Weiland is a businessman in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and former candidate for the U.S. Senate; Drey Samuelson was Chief of Staff for U.S. Senator Tim Johnson for his 28 year congressional career. They are the co-founders of TakeitBack.org.
Very simply put, Rick Weiland found it impossible to win as a Democrat, so he wants to eliminate party affiliation. He wants to put an eraser to the term “Democrat,” because he knows in it’s current form. no one has any interest in putting them in office. So, it’s far easier to eliminate party affiliation from the ballot than it is for them to transform their political party into one that reflects the views of South Dakotans.
Yep, long-time Democrats Slick Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson. But, what does Slick Rick hope to accomplish if he can get more Democrats in? That’s easy. He wrote about it on July 8th of this year:
Political party barely matters in the Nebraska Legislature.
* Nebraska has a substantially more progressive taxation system than many other “red” states–while our home state of South Dakota ranks a dismal 4th on the Institute on Tax and Economic Policy “Tax Inequality Index,” Nebraska ranks 28th, substantially better than blue states like Washington, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Ohio, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
* The Nebraska Legislature just passed a repeal of the death penalty, a 6 cent increase in gas taxes (which will fund desperately needed infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges), and issuance of drivers licenses to the children of undocumented immigrants, the so-called “Dreamers.”
Rick Weiland wants “more progressive taxation,” a.k.a. Democrat-speak for a state income tax. Rick Weiland wants to repeal the death penalty. Rick Weiland wants even higher gas taxes. And Rick Weiland wants to give drivers licenses to the children of illegal aliens.
And I suspect that’s only the tip of the iceberg of what they intend to do to South Dakotans.
17 thoughts on “November 9th, 2015. The Day that Democrats gave up their name, so you won’t know who is pushing for that income tax.”
If I were a long-term Democrat and one who remembers McGovern-Kneip-Daschle-Johnson and the three Herseths, I’d be livid as it is an admission of two things:
1) Obama has destroyed the Democrat brand
2) The leadership of the party for the last four years has been “leadershipless”
So, in typical liberal fashion of “don’t make me accountable,” let’s wish the problem away by getting new clothes (or in this case taking off the old clothes and getting naked).
It actually is hilarious as not only will it be crushed at the polls worse than Weiland was last year but it will also put every Democrat running for office on the defeniive in their own community from their Democratic base.
In the end, it just reinforces what we already know- Bad leaders lose their troops. When the troops are gone, you surrender.
You surrender and turn Republican.
Said by the surrender and turn NON-Republican!
So I assume the auditor, treasurer and other constitutional offices would change for the delegate method to a open primary also? Correct?
Ok time to raise money for these offices, GULP–I don’t think Rick Weiland thought that through.
If this initiated constitutional amendment was submitted to the SOS on November 9th, isn’t it too late? Art. 23, Sec. 1 of the SD Constitution says “The petition containing the text of the proposed amendment and the names and addresses of its sponsors shall be filed at least one year before the next general election at which the proposed amendment is submitted to the voters.” The next general election will occur on Nov. 8, 2016. Nov. 9, 2015, is not “at least one year before” Nov. 8, 2016.
No labels. No dates.
No big deal.
–The Nebraska Legislature just passed a repeal of the death penalty, a 6 cent increase in gas taxes (which will fund desperately needed infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges), and issuance of drivers licenses to the children of undocumented immigrants, the so-called “Dreamers.”
It s clear that Nebraskans were disgusted by the recent legislative session.
The DP repeal was put on hold when a record numbers of signatures were gathered to put the issue in front of the voters.
–) changing the South Dakota Legislature into a nonpartisan body, just as the nonpartisan initiative passed in Nebraska in 1934 has effectively done there
NE voters know and candidates tell them to which party they belong. Its no secret. Its no more “effective” than any other system.
In the Unicameral, a bill goes around for three readings before the final vote on 3rd reading. And the party affiliation of the local representative candidates is well known. Voters would be wise to keep the current system, unless you can save serious money going from 105 to 40 or so lawmakers.
–3) dispensing with the need for partisan caucuses, as it has in Nebraska, thus ensuring that public policy will no longer be made behind closed doors
NE legislators gather together behind closed doors and make deals routinely. They know who is who and which party and which philosophies mesh.
Why this incestuous romance with NE’s “nonpartisan” unicameral?
A few comments:
One has to understand the unique historical reason for Nebraska’s unicameral non-partisan legislature to discern the applicability of “non-partisan” elections in SD.
1) Nebraska has both non-partisan elections AND a unicameral legislature. To assert we can get the “benefits” of Nebraska by only doing half is highly speculative.
2) The rationale for both was representative of the era (1930’s) where national issues were highly divorced from local issues and people didn’t see a reason to organize along philosophies they believed applicable to national issues. Nebraskans wanted to have the single body divided by local issues vs. philosophical/idealogical issues, e.g. rural vs urban, west vs. east, agriculture vs. main street. While it may have been applicable in the 1930’s (I doubt it) and its proponents claimed this was more forward thinking than the normal bicameral/partisan organization common in the US, does South Dakota’s issues really break-down in such ways today?
3) Does it “fix” what is ailing the system? Do we have too many politicians elected by the cult of personality vs. issues driven? Do we want the primary criteria to be personality or a general philosophy on issues?
4) And, most important, this is a charade/faux attempt to “change” or “take it back.” Who will still be doing candidate recruitment? Does anyone think in Gettysburg voters won’t know which person is the Republican or Democrat? This is were the charade comes in. Weiland/Samuelson want to find a way to with no effort (the SDDP has developed a competence in expecting results by doing nothing) peel off the most uninformed voter by appealing to their ignorance vs. doing the hard work of organization and educating voters.
Pretty good until the end, Troy when you stopped looking beyond your nose. 🙂 (In 10 years, your seemingly best argument will be recognized as your most partisan and foolish one.)
One-party rule does not work well for the people. Look at the damage that one-party has done to the state of South Dakota in the last few years … EB-5, MCEC and Gant. Maybe this proposal will get the opportunists out of government and encourage good citizens to run for office.
One party rule works just fine when the party runs the government.
Its when the bureaucracy runs the government is when problems arise.
From the IRS, to the VA, to INS and EB5, to MCEC to whatever, it’s not the party or the governor or the president or other elected officials, running those programs, its unelected bureaucrats–THAT’S THE PROBLEM.
Those unelected bureaucrats are governed by Republicans in the state of South Dakota. The Republican Party owns this mess.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a bureaucrat who worries what this or that legislator thinks, except when there’s some scandal afoot.
Should Republicans pass a law ordering a percentage of the population to become Democrats? Seems like that’s what you are hinting at.
Comments are closed.