There was some rebellion from the floor of the South Dakota State House as it gaveled into session today, and a diminished group of legislators protested the elections held this last November, similar to what we saw in the US House of Representatives for the same race in the US House.
Except the group in South Dakota can’t count. Because they had nowhere near the numbers to affect the race, except to symbolically stand against the Majority.
Who voted no on electing Bartels? Aaron Aylwayd, Randy Gross, Phil Jensen, Chris Karr, Karla Lems, (Hillary Clinton Donor) Liz May, John Mills, Tina Mulally, Marty Overweg, Sue Peterson, Sue Peterson, Tony Randolph, John Sjaarda, Bethany Soye, and the defeated opponent for the speakership, Jon Hansen, all voted against seating Hugh Bartels, and came up on the losing end of the 53-14 vote.
It wasn’t just a little lopsided. When you’re starting out session with what might be the single dumbest act of the year, which did nothing but to set this group on record as opponents to the majority for opposition’s sake, you’re left scratching your head. Even if they had been able to woo, and gain the support of every Democrat in the House, they would have fallen short. So why go through the exercise at all?
Quoting Kenny Rogers, “you’ve got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away...” All they’ve really done is point out how their numbers have diminished since the last session in one act.
If I have any critique for the Majority Leadership in all of this, it would be that they really need to quit seeking reconciliation with the group. Because as demonstrated today, they’re not going to stop being pains in the majority’s chamber. This past November, those that won in leadership made a point to seek unity and work together, which today was thrown back in their face. And look what that got them?
Honestly, why the majority is putting up with these guys? They tried the carrot. It just might just be time for the stick.
“Except the group in South Dakota can’t count. Because they had nowhere near the numbers to affect the race, except to symbolically stand against the Majority.”
If that’s your take on fourteen what was the commentary on the Anderson and Tidemann resistance in 2021?
Bethany Soye is an embarrassment to District 9. She did not vote to impeach, she now votes against Speaker Bartels, and I’m sure she will make some bonehead votes this session.
Odenbach and Kevin Jensen were two more votes but they chickened out and voted for Bartels.
Pull Overweg’s vice chair gavel of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Give it to someone else.
These boneheads are showing their true colors early. It’s time to bring the hammer and show that this behavior will not be tolerated. I agree, if you can take away a chairmanship or a nice committee seat, then it will send a clear message.
Not surprised at all that Sjaarda is part of that group. I figured he would be–glad I don’t live in that district.
It would be fun to know who went to the Dems.
Pull John Hansen’s chair gavel on judiciary. He just spit in their face for trying to work with him.
I don’t know either Mr. Hansen or Mr. Bartels. I do know three of the 14 members who voted for Mr. Hansen. They have a proven conservative track record. I also know that according to the American Conservative Union’s scorecard, Mr. Bartels has a lifetime average of 66% (58% last session) and Mr. Hansen’s score is 83% (84% last year). Why shouldn’t these 14 vote for the more conservative person? That’s what their constituents elect them to do. I have no idea why the 53 voted for Barthels…that’s their choice and I won’t resort to juvenile name-calling of them for doing so. My own mistake was not letting my two to always support the true conservative.
True public servants do not run for office to a chairmanship or committee seat. They run to legislate for the benefit of their constituents.
The Speaker should be a pragmatic leader of all. Period. The speaker should not be a “true conservative” however one might define that term. Of course that is the problem. You can site one scorecard and I can site another with different results.
I too base my entire political outlook on a single scorecard. That’s sensible, right?
They did not vote FOR Hansen. They voted NO. There was no alternative unless and until they made a substitute motion or achieved a majority in defeating Bartels.
Today and November, a lot of people did not vote for Hansen.
after the horrible mccarthy spectacle at the hands of tantrum-ready house conservatives, i’m glad our legislature could follow that with a big sack of me-too-ism. for basically no reason. it bodes well for this session.
let’s bring the term anti-republican hyper-republicanism into general usage.
A vote against the Speaker is a vote to make yourself less effective, for no reason. Each of these 14 should be asked by their constituents: Why are you sideline yourself for no reason? How does that help your constituents?
Give me a break. People want you to legislate, not grandstand. I swear some Republicans are more interested in being in the minority than actually governing.
Oh, and shove the scorecard. Anyone can make a “true conservative” group and grade how they want.
Hate cherry picked scorecards. They should all be eliminated. They are used as weapons by certain groups to take cheap shots at some legislators.
As the most eloquent speaker ever in the legislature (Brock) told me long ago, “It matters not how you vote, it only matters in being able to explain your vote to your constituents”, this group is now there. On the US House votes’ over three days there were demands for rules changes which were ultimately met and passed in exchange for yay votes. No such thing happened in the SD House Speaker vote on the floor (it’s actually against the rules in SD) so there was no upside to that vote other than a showing of dissatisfaction. And even though I would have voted for Jon in the caucus vote (sorry Hugh) I would have shown unity on the house floor and voted with the majority. Clear heads will prevail.