Tina Mulally to challenge Haverly in District 35 Senate Race

batman_tima_mulaleyI’d head rumors of it, but saw my first evidence tonight that District 35 Resident Tina Mulally plans to mount a primary challenge from the right to Terri Haverly of District 35.

What marks it as somewhat unusual is that Haverly isn’t exactly what most might consider liberal. Senator Haverly was noted by the American Conservative Union as receiving their award for Conservative Achievement for voting with the group 80-89% of the time. As the group noted in a January press release which cited Haverly for her work:

ACU researches and selects a wide range of bills that reflect a member’s adherence to conservative principles. We select bills that focus on former President Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of the “three-legged stool”: 1) economic: taxes, budgets, regulation, spending, healthcare, and property; 2) social and cultural: 2nd Amendment, religious freedom, life, welfare, and education; and 3) government integrity: voting, individual liberty, privacy, and transparency. The range of issues selected have been specifically designed to convey to voters the most accurate assessment of South Dakota’s elected officials who can be counted on to defend the principles of a free society: Life, Liberty, and Property.

Legislators who scored above 80% in ACU’s 2015 Ratings of the South Dakota Legislature will receive awards for their hard work toward passage of legislation that reflects conservative principles. As Reagan stated, “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally.”

Read that here.

Mulally recently posted the above campaign slogan on her facebook page.


Tina Mulally.

What’s Mulally’s background? And why do I bring up the ACU? Mulally had been part of the wingnut group in Rapid City that in 2014 described it’s intent to push the Republican party further to the right:

To right those perceived wrongs, the vast majority of the group’s candidates are challenging Republican incumbents that the group views as too centrist.

Among a few of those candidates: Julie Frye-Mueller of Rapid City is taking on state Rep. Mike Verchio for District 30; Rip Ryness of Rapid City is challenging state Sen. Jacqueline Sly for District 33; George Ferebee of Hill City is contesting the Ward 1 seat of Pennington County Commissioner Ken Davis.


Mike Mueller and Tina Mulally, both of Rapid City, are running for positions as directors of two West Dakota Water Development Districts – relatively obscure political entities that oversee drainage issues in Pennington County.

And, after primary ballots are counted next month, Napoli is expecting success.

“I think well over the majority are going to win,” he said. “I really do.”

Read that here.

So oddly, Mulally is going to spend the election trying to out-conservative an already conservative candidate, launching herself at the State Senate straight from a 2014 campaign for a water district.

And I’ll just leave it at that.

52 Replies to “Tina Mulally to challenge Haverly in District 35 Senate Race”

  1. Springer

    This is the direct result of this year’s executive and legislative tax increases, bathroom bill veto, and proposed Medicaid expansion.

    1. Anonymous

      That’s awesome! Though this is not my district, it is joyous to know others in SD are true pro-life people. The senator in our district received a 20% from SDRL and she claims to be a Catholic:(

  2. Anonymous

    Tax and spend liberals are all going to have trouble this June in western South Dakota.

      1. grudznick

        The more glamour the shot, the more bat___-crazy the cat.

        That’s batMAN, people. Batman-crazy.

  3. Troy Jones

    If people want to run making the tax increase, bathroom bill and Medicaid expansion the centerpiece of their campaign and Haverly is on the opposite side of these issue, she had to explain her position to the primary voters where they will weigh these positions against other issues.

    But, comments which denigrate their persons (Mulaly-glamour shot bimbo, etc.) or misrepresent their philosophy by innuendo (Haverly=Liberal) have no place in political debate.

  4. JimV

    It appears that a philosophical split in the SD GOP much like what is happening at the national level is creeping into in SD. If elected officials continue to espouse conservative credentials to get elected then distance themselves from conservative faithfuls, I expect this to be a very stressful year on those elected GOP officials who are trans-conservatives. It appears that the only solutions acceptable to them is to throw money at a problem (especially if they are on the receiving end) without consideration of the long term consequences. Unfortunately, the politics of influence and self-interests is replacing honest, substantive debate.

  5. Anonymous

    What I love hear (now that these legislators are back in reality) is they are finding out that the special interest groups don’t represent the majority and they are going to pay the price. The Governor and the lobbying groups are pretty small compared to the rest of this state. If you think you are going to raise taxes someday, you should disclose why. I think the voters won’t soon forget to ask the candidates about these scenarios.

  6. Springer

    The tax increase for teachers vote is going to hit present legislators who supported it, especially those with small school districts which are now finding out that they won’t get the money promised. Maybe the legislators should listen more to the majority of the people, really study the bills before passing them, and tune out the tactics and harassment of the lobbyists. And if any of these same people think that expanding Medicaid is a good idea and that the feds will live up to their promise to pay the IHS expenses, they are in for another rude awakening.

    1. Fred Deutsch

      Springer, I don’t know why you think legislators don’t listen to the majority of the people. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I literally received well over a hundred email per day related to the education issue. I supported the three bills because the vast majority of my constituents – including people I know are Republicans – supported it, and because in my honest judgment I thought it was best for the people of South Dakota.

      1. Anonymous

        If you wish to be a tax and spend politician? That supports liberal policies? Please change your registration and run as a Democrat.

      2. Wow

        Fred, the only ones who probably contacted you were teachers and administrators. The people of South Dakota did not want it as it taxed them.

        1. Fred Deutsch

          Wow, certainly teachers contacted me, but so did lots of moms and pops and business owners and people from all walks of life. Clearly you didn’t want it, but please give me credit for doing my homework and researching the desires of my constituents.

          1. JimV

            Wow…indeed! Curious? Do you and Mr. Wiik not represent the same district? I’m sure your past relationship with the school district had nothing to do with your circle of influence.

      3. Cinder

        Well said Fred and most of all, thank you for your service. The problem is that these people aren’t interested in what the majority of South Dakotans want, they only want their way. They think because they gather in their little huddles and tell each other how smart they are, that they must be right. They believe that the rest of South Dakotans just don’t understand the issues. These people are committed to saving the majority of South Dakotans from their stupid selves.

      4. duggersd

        I am one of those teachers who is looking to see what happens on this. In talking to people outside of education, just about everyone who expressed an opinion was in favor of the increase. I believe I saw a poll that indicated a favorable rating of more than 60%. I am nearing retirement so this will have little effect on me unless I choose to stay in the profession longer. I thank you for listening to the people and I know you had a very difficult decision to make when you cast your vote.

      5. Springer

        Well, it apparently was not best for the small school districts. They are being faced with having to lay off teachers in order to give any kind of salary increase to the remaining ones. And I have heard that most teachers will not receive that target salary of $48,500 anyway. I also heard that it was unconstitutional to raise taxes in order to give one segment of the population a wage increase while ignoring the low wages of almost every other occupation in the state. Does this wage increase also go to the paras? To the other ancillary staff that keep the schools running and the students educated? I think it depends on who you listen to whether you think the majority of South Dakotans thought this was the way to go. I will wait to see if the teachers are satisfied when the surrounding states again raise their wages and then we will be behind again. Fred may be conservative on most issues, and I think he is, but this tax increase is going to come back to haunt many legislators IMO.

        1. Anon

          Hearsay can get you into trouble. My kids go to a small school. In my school district every teacher will be getting a healthy raise. They are in the process of determining how to distribute the funding. There will be no layoffs.

          There has been a great deal of misinformation. The easiest way to get the facts is to go to the DOE website and check out the “Accountability Spreadsheet.” Of particular interest is the tab to allow you to compare funding per district under the old formula compared to the new.

          Every school district is different, but to say that small schools are taking an across the board hit is not accurate.

          1. grudznick

            Mr. Springer is of the ilk that likes to repeat things over and over hoping it will become believed or become true. Much like some libbies out there.

          2. Anonymous

            Then you better contact the Bon Homme school district and tell them about the healthy raises. You have no clue!

        2. D Molouski

          According to the formula, schools will receive funding based on student to teacher ratios. It’s pretty simple math to figure it out. Big school districts will do well; certain smaller ones, Custer, Hill City, Hot Springs for example, have 2 choices, don’t raise salaries according to what was advertised, or, get rid of some teachers. The numbers are no secret, and anyone who disagrees should do the math.0

          So Jacqueline Sly was technically correct when I heard her say at a cracker barrel no district will have to lay off teachers; however, what she said was very misleading since the whole premise of this tax was to have salaries rise to a specific dollar figure, and that figure cannot possibly be met without layoffs or additional funding from other sources.

  7. enquirer

    the sales tax increase won’t register on peoples radar, that will get the same pass that the minimum wage increase got from voters. haverly is in no trouble here, with her bona fides. but those who support her should get out that vote nonetheless.

  8. Troy Jones

    Fred is a liberal and urged to register as a Democrat? Hilarious. Ardently Pro-Life, pro-free enterprise, anti-regulation, and sponsored the “bathroom bill.”

    1. Anonymous

      The post was generic. Interesting Freudian slip on your part or an acknowledgement that his tax and spend ways identify him as someone who should reconsider their party registration…

      Interesting to note, he and many of the other tax and spend “Republicans” have identical records, on the tax and spending increases, as the honest Democrats.

  9. anonymous

    If Mulally is any indication of the Tea Party’s ability to attract quality candidates they are doomed to defeat .

  10. Anonymous

    A primary is ok…let me mulally win or lose on her merits not talk of photos.

    There was talk of primaries for 24 who opposed tax increase so only fair to have some primaries for the ones who supported it….speaking of which is gosch going to primary Solano …leader of opposition be a governor pick who supported it…that should be a good one to watch

  11. Anonymous

    Dang may double post…

    Primaries are fine keep people honest both ways…for or against tax increase…but lets see if she wins on merits of ideas not glam shot or not.

    Gosch v Solano should be a good primary to watch…anti-tax leader versus gov appointment…

    1. grudznick

      Indeed. Ineffective insaner than most vs. a nice guy who gets things done in a sane and orderly fashion. A fellow who couldn’t even keep his “leadership” of the legislatures intact for 2 weeks vs. a fellow who grew his leadership and got things done.
      It will be fun to watch indeed. If the fringers get a 60% turnout and the normals get a 20% turnout then young Mr. Solano is in trouble. He needs a 25% tournout of normals.

    1. grudznick

      My friend Mr. Verchio voted against your tax increase but I bet the fringers run a real crazy in his area.

        1. D Molouski

          Considering the fact that Duagaard controls what gets voted on, I can see having to vote no on the tax bill. There were other bills that addressed education out there that never got out of committee because of Duagaard. One has to recognize that until we get enough people in there to actually challenge the establishment, the state will be run by the governor, and Pennington county will continue to be a donor county for the rest of the state.

          I thought Verchio presented a great rebuttal to the stats that show teachers being paid less than other states. He listed about a dozen professions from plumbers to engineers; guess what, SD pay for everyone is at the bottom.

            1. D Molouski

              I guess that’s depends on who you ask. Personally I don’t think it’s a problem. If I did, I wouldn’t live here. I know Duagaard, Rounds, and others have tried to turn it around and probably do the best they can. Unfortunately the government has had limited success in controlling wages and prices.