Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Jennifer Healy Keintz is a Democrat candidate for the state legislature in District 1. Unfortunately, it seems she’s a bit of a snob when it comes to attending any of the schools she wants to be in charge of and herself attended.

Despite campaigning to be in the legislature which holds the power of the purse strings over state regental institutions such as USD, and South Dakota State University, last year Keintz was telling the New York Times that she wouldn’t recommend her child attend them, in favor of “elite institutions”:

To the Editor:

I earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from South Dakota State University in the 1990s. Immediately after graduating I moved to the East Coast, where many people I met couldn’t find South Dakota on a map and had certainly never heard of the university. I was able to find jobs with good companies in various large cities and to build a decent career. After a few years in the work force, it seemed to matter more where I had worked than where I went to college.

I was probably not called in to interview by some companies because I hadn’t attended a prestigious university, but there are plenty of great employers who look at more than alma mater. All that said, I’ve seen how attending certain schools opens many doors. It’s not a guarantee of success, but there’s no denying that graduates of top schools have a leg up.

I have a 2-year-old and I already think about where she’ll go to college. It will ultimately be her choice, but I will strongly suggest elite institutions. Despite my own positive experience and my desire for it to not matter, it absolutely does.

Jennifer Healy Keintz
Eden, S.D.

Read it here.

“I will strongly suggest elite institutions. Despite my own positive experience and my desire for it to not matter, it absolutely does.”

So much for wanting to be a representative of the people, with an elitist attitude like that.

From Facebook, State Senator Lee Schoenbeck calls out his colleague Democrat Susan Wismer as being ineffective, and infers that she can’t get things done for her constituents:

What brings this up. apparently Wismer called out Schoenbeck and others for expressing their first amendment rights of free speech and supported her opponent, Michael Rohl who Wismer cites as dominating the race in print and on the airwaves:

 

Rohl also is supported by another one of Wismer’s colleagues, Jack Kolbeck:

If you want to join others who think Susan Wismer is the most obnoxious and ineffective legislator in the entire State Senate, and needs to go, drop Michael a note here, and lend your support!

South Dakota Small Businesses Endorse Sen. Mike Rounds for Re-election 

PIERRE, S.D. (Oct. 27, 2020) – The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s leading small business advocacy organization, today endorsed Senator Mike Rounds for re-election to the United States Senate.

“Senator Mike Rounds has been a strong supporter for small businesses during his time in the U.S. Senate, earning a 100% NFIB voting record on issues impacting small businesses in South Dakota,” said Lindsey Riter-Rapp, NFIB’s South Dakota State Director. “As a small business owner and NFIB member, Senator Rounds knows first-hand the issues that impact small business employers every day. He has supported historic tax relief for South Dakota’s small businesses and works hard to advance pro-small business legislation in the U.S. Senate. On behalf of South Dakota’s small business community, we are proud to endorse Senator Mike Rounds for re-election today.”

“Senator Rounds is a proven ally of South Dakota’s small businesses,” said NFIB’s National Political Director Sharon Sussin. “We are pleased to endorse Senator Mike Rounds for re-election to the U.S. Senate and we look forward to continue to work with him.”

Mike Rounds endorsement today comes from NFIB FedPAC, the organization’s political action committee. NFIB FedPAC is funded by NFIB member donations above membership dues. Decisions made by NFIB FedPAC are managed by a member-driven grassroots evaluation process. Small business owners are influential in their communities and NFIB members in South Dakota will work hard to re-elect Mike Rounds.

###

Governor Noem Announces K-12 Connect

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem announced the launch of K-12 Connect, a program to provide internet service at no cost to eligible K-12 students in their homes for the remainder of the 2020-21 school year.

“Given the unprecedented disruption for many of our K-12 students, we want to make sure there isn’t a gap in learning this year,” said Governor Noem. “So many South Dakotans are stepping up to help, and I want to thank the South Dakotatelecommunications companies that are teaming up with us to make this access possible.”

Eligible households will receive a letter this week indicating eligibility and identifying a telecommunications company to call to access free internet service through K-12 Connect. To enroll, eligible households must call the telecommunications company noted in their letter to set up service. Providers will install the necessary equipment on a first-come, first-serve basis. Internet service will be provided through June 30, 2021. After that time, the household must return the equipment to the provider or continue services at the household’s expense.

Households must meet all of the following:

1. Have at least one student currently enrolled in an accredited South Dakota K-12 school;
2. Must meet the income eligibility guidelines for the free and reduced school lunch program; and
3. The household was not subscribed to a fixed broadband internet service as of July 1, 2020.

Enrollment closes Nov. 20, 2020.

K-12 Connect is a partnership of the South Dakota Governor’s Office, Bureau of Information and Telecommunications, Department of Education, and participating telecommunications companies. Funding for the program is from the CARES Act. 

More information, including options for households who may qualify but don’t receive a letter, can be found atk12connect.sd.gov.

Telecommunications companies who are participating in K-12 Connect include:

Alliance Communications Cooperative

Beresford Municipal Telephone Company

Faith Municipal Telephone Company

Fort Randall Telephone Company

Golden West Telecommunications

Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative

Kennebec Telephone Company

Long Lines Broadband

Midco

Midstate Communications

RC Technologies

Santel Communications Cooperative

Swiftel Communications/Brookings Municipal Telephone

TrioTel Communications

Valley Telecommunications Cooperative

Vast

Venture Communications Cooperative

West River Cooperative Telephone Company

West River Telecommunications Cooperative

###

After I had posted a story yesterday on proposed ballot measures on marijuana laws potentially conflicting with federal firearms statutes yesterday, a related story appeared on KELOland.com.

Without any attribution of where they read it, of course, because it’s KELOland:

If South Dakota voters approve proposed Constitutional Amendment A that would legalize recreational marijuana for people age 21 and older, or Initiated Measure 26 that would legalize medical marijuana, South Dakota’s would-be gun buyers could find themselves in a legal jam.

That’s because one of the questions the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives asks on its firearms transaction record is, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

The form goes on to note, “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

Read it here.

Justice Barrett Confirmed to Supreme Court with Rounds’ Support

Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most qualified nominees to be confirmed to the Supreme Court”

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement on the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

“Today is a great day for the rule of law and our Founders’ vision when carefully crafting the Constitution,” said Rounds. “Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most qualified nominees to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. She will be a fair and impartial judge who will apply the law as written, and not legislate from the bench.

“The Senate’s constitutional role of ‘advice and consent’ when considering Supreme Court nominees is one of our most important duties – which I take very seriously. On behalf of all South Dakotans, it was an honor to cast my vote in support of Justice Barrett tonight.”

Thune Statement on Confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

“Since the day she was nominated, Judge Barrett has proven that she understands the proper role of a judge in our system of government, which is to rule based on the law and the Constitution, not preferred outcomes or policy preferences.”

Click here or on the image above to watch Thune’s statement.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement after the Senate voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a person with extraordinary intelligence and comprehensive command of the law, and she is extraordinarily qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court,” said Thune. “Since the day she was nominated, Judge Barrett has proven that she understands the proper role of a judge in our system of government, which is to rule based on the law and the Constitution, not preferred outcomes or policy preferences. Judge Barrett said it herself – ‘I apply the law, I follow the law, [members of Congress] make the policy.’ That is the kind of justice that Judge Barrett will be, and that’s the kind of justice both Democrats and Republicans should want. I look forward to seeing her serve on the Supreme Court.”

In a week, people across South Dakota will be voting on the passage of Initiated Measure 26 to allow medical marijuana in South Dakota, as well as Amendment A, which would legalize the use of marijuana and enshrine it in the state constitution. According to recent polling, both measures certainly have their supporters, and will be running competitively in the state. But you don’t seem to be hearing a lot of what the negative effects of passage will be.

There’s potentially a huge bombshell lurking in the weeds for many South Dakotans that doesn’t seem to have come up. Until now.  Because there’s at least the possibility that under federal law, marijuana use at the state level could disqualify people from the use, possession, or transfer of firearms. While they might think they’ve gained a new right, people might end up trading the right to use pot for the right to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition.

Now, before you start throwing out anonymous angry comments, that’s not anti-drug hysteria, and it’s not telling people to “just say no.”  It’s what the federal government is pretty open saying on form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Basically, it’s the form that is filled in when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder:

Atf 4473 by Pat Powers on Scribd

In the current version of form 4473, on the BATF website, Question 21e, it asks firearm purchasers “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

With the warning in the form, clearly the ATF recognizes the conundrum that the question poses to firearm purchasers, but as the question notes, there is no wiggle room.

If you’re using marijuana, you’re an unlawful user, because it remains criminal under federal law. And your right to buy a gun goes away.

But it doesn’t end there. Because the person filling the form out has to further certify that their answers are true and correct:

I certify that my answers in Section B are true, correct, and complete. …. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 21.b. through 21.k. is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. … I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law…

So, if you’re planning to be a marijuana or medical marijuana user, you might have some complications if you are a hunter or will defend your home. Because as noted by the ATF, you could run into an issue because you are “prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.”  And if you lie about it? You’ve just committed a federal felony act.

One thing to consider about this prohibition under federal law is that this is nothing new, as way back in 2011, the ATF under President Obama sent a memo out about the conflicts of the legalization movement in states and the purchase of guns and ammunition:

092611 Atf Open Letter to All Ffls Marijuana for Medicinal Purposes by Pat Powers on Scribd

“Therefore, any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Such persons should answer “yes” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473 (August 2008), Firearms Transaction Record, and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered “no” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.”

That’s a pretty definitive statement, which has been in effect for nearly a decade.. but this isn’t something we’ve heard until now.  And I’m somewhat surprised.

Because when that statement was issued from the US Department of Justice on September 21, 2011, I’m sure they would have brought it up to the US Attorneys in office at the time. Including South Dakota US Attorney at the time, Brendan Johnson.  And that would be the same Brendan Johnson who is out promoting the legalization of marijuana at the state level.

Recently (I believe about 2015), the ATF sought comments regarding revisions to Form 4473, and some of the comments asked that the ATF revise the Form to state that “users of state-licensed physician prescribed marijuana for medicinal purposes” are not categorized as unlawful users of a controlled substance pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(3) and Question 11.e on Form 4473.  The ATF response letter rejected this proposal. “ATF cannot accept your suggestion,” and reaffirmed the 2011 open letter. They were quite definitive, and noted “There are no exceptions for medicinal purposes,” because a licensed physician cannot prescribe marijuana” consistent with federal law.

The bottom line is that no matter what we pass in South Dakota, Initiated Measure 26 and Amendment A have no impact on the federal law.  And I don’t know that Congress has much of an interest to relax laws, and give guns to drug users anytime soon.

IM26 and Amendment A has the potential to fool residents into thinking their possession and receipt of firearms is legal when put up against a state right to buy marijuana.

And people might just find out the hard way that they’ve traded a new right for a foundational one.

From the Federal Elections Commission, US Senate candidate Dan Ahlers is not setting a good example for open government, in that he can’t seem to file his campaign finance reports on time:

He was late on his October Quarterly report, and now he’s late again on his pre-general report.

Character Matters
By Sen. John Thune

Anyone who tuned in for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing saw why she is held in such high regard by her colleagues, students, and peers – and why she will make an extraordinary Supreme Court justice. She’s extremely intelligent and possesses a comprehensive command of the law. She has been described as “a jurist of formidable intellect,” a “brilliant and conscientious lawyer,” and “a staggering academic mind.” Even several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee couldn’t hide the fact that they were impressed with Judge Barrett.

One of the most important qualities I see in Judge Barrett is that she understands the proper role of a judge in our system of government. As Judge Barrett made clear, she understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not make the law. To rule based on the the Constitution, not rewrite the rules of the game. Or as Judge Barrett said to senators at her hearing, “I apply the law, I follow the law, you make the policy.”

Judge Barrett has made it clear that when cases come before her on the Supreme Court, she will consider the facts, the law, and the Constitution – and nothing else. Not her personal beliefs. Not her political opinions. Just the law and the Constitution. That’s the kind of justice all of us – Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative – should want.

I could spend a considerable amount of time highlighting all the extraordinary tributes to Judge Barrett that have poured in since her nomination – from lawyers and scholars of every background and political persuasion. There was one piece of testimony that struck me in particular, though.

The chairman of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary testified before the Judiciary Committee during Judge Barrett’s hearing. He said, “Lawyers and judges uniformly praised [Judge Barrett’s] integrity. Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.” In her line of work, character matters. And while I have not always agreed with the ABA’s rankings, they certainly got it right with Judge Barrett when they rated her “well-qualified.”

Since it’s hard – if not impossible – for my Democrat colleagues to attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court, many on the left resorted to attacks, distractions, and distortions. It’s shameful, but the fact that Judge Barrett’s opponents deployed these kinds of tactics is just further evidence that they know how qualified she truly is. In fact, she’s one of the most qualified candidates I’ve ever met, and I’m honored to have supported her throughout this process. She will make a terrific Supreme Court justice, one of which we all can be proud.

###