Author: @SoDakCampaigns

A facebook acquaintance posted the following on his facebook page past night, alleging that the Flandreau City Council isn’t terribly inviting to the media when it comes to the local newspaper taping and broadcasting their meetings.

Somehow, that doesn’t come as a shocker in South Dakota, where open meetings are still anathema to many local boards who haven’t experienced such things up until now.

What’s more troubling is that there’s an allegation that their attorney might even be backing them on it.

Your thoughts? And where’s the SDNA on such things?

SD Right to Life Supports Effective Plan to Defund Planned Parenthood

Refuses to Let Shutdown Politics Interfere with Primary Goal

Watertown, SD – South Dakota Right to Life issued a statement today in support of strategic and effective efforts to truly defund Planned Parenthood and called on federal legislators in Washington, DC to do the same.

“The mission of our organization is to protect and defend the right to life, which is the most fundamental right of humankind. Like so many other Americans, we were shocked and horrified as the Planned Parenthood videos were released over the last few months and we strongly support defunding Planned Parenthood,” said Fred Deutsch, President of South Dakota Right to Life.

“We believe the best way to actually achieve our intended result, to stop federal funding of Planned Parenthood, is through focused efforts that are well-timed and have a chance at becoming law. Shutting down the government over funding to Planned Parenthood would create a distraction from our primary cause.  Additionally, it wouldn’t even be effective if we won the shutdown fight since the majority of federal funds flow through entitlement programs like Medicaid that are not part of the annual funding approval process,” continued Deutsch.

“We are thankful for the strong pro-life positions that South Dakota’s federal delegation has taken and their support to defund Planned Parenthood. Our organization will continue to educate the public and we look forward to working with our delegation, and a new pro-life President, very soon to defund this horrible organization once and for all,” concluded Deutsch.

###

Preliminary Autopsy Results Released in Platte Fire

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today the preliminary autopsy results have been released in connection to the house fire that occurred in Platte, S.D. on Thursday, September 17, 2015. Preliminary autopsy reports indicate that cause and manner of death for Nicole, Kailey, Jaeci, Connor and Michael Westerhuis were homicide by shotgun wounds. Cause of death for Scott Westerhuis was shotgun wound with manner of death as suspected suicide based on the current investigation findings.

“We have experienced the tragic loss of an entire family including young children that has affected an entire community. Based on evidence of foul play continuing to be uncovered, law enforcement remains committed to a complete and thorough investigation,” said Jackley.

“We at the Charles Mix County Sheriff’s Office express our deepest sorrow to the families involved and to the Platte community,” said Charles Mix County Sheriff Randy Thaler.

The Charles Mix County Sheriff’s Office and the Division of Criminal Investigation continue their investigation into the circumstances surrounding the manner of death of Scott Westerhuis, including interviews, evidence collection and forensic testing.

-30-

And Slick Rick Weiland is back at it again. The ballot explanation for his measure to have taxpayer funding of campaigns has been released into the wild by the Attorney General (Which you read about here first, btw), so it’s just a formality by filing it with the SOS to begin circulating.

First, they have to fix all 36 pages of the measure on to a petition form with the signature blanks – it’s a legal requirement, and will be absolutely laughable to see them do it. I suspect it’s going to fold up and look much like the South Dakota road map by the time they’re all done cramming it on there.

But that’s not my point regarding writing about it today. My question is openly wondering how many of you out there think such things in the measure like public financing of campaigns is a good thing?

I mean, we’re having trouble finding the revenue to pay teachers more, and here’s a politician asking for the public to pay for political campaigns?  Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to fly, and may just leave a bad taste in taxpayer’s mouths.

One thing that’s been pointed out to me is that most states that have public financing of campaigns also have a state income tax as well, so they’re a bit more flush with cash for this sort of thing. I really doubt that’s the kind of trade-off South Dakotans would have any interest in making.

Scott Walker is out.   But, with his performances at the debates not registering much on the seismic charts….. Will anyone miss him leaving?

(Somehow, I’m very doubtful that this is going to make the ballot with 45 days to go. – PP)

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure to Revise State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for an initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

1. An initiated measure to revise State campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission, and appropriate funds

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed measure.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office…. (View below, because I’m bringing it to you – PP)

Campaign Finance & Lobbying Init Measure

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

1. An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
4. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
5. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
6. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
7. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
9. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans
10. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections
11. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections and requiring secret ballot elections for certain legislative officers
12. An initiated measure to give certain organizations the right to charge fees
13. An initiated measure to revise State campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission, and appropriate funds

Interesting comments in the Argus Leader Article on Steve Hildebrand this past weekend.

Aside from the face it was a nearly slobbering love letter from the Argus to one of President Obama’s former campaign chiefs, if you got past Stu Whitney, and read what Hildebrand had to say about Democratic Mayor Mike Huether, it’s very clear that there’s always been a “Glorious 10 year plan”  and it culminates with Huether running for Governor:

Hildebrand was credited with sharpening the campaign message and delivering a strong turnout on election night as Huether became the first political newcomer in 25 years to win the job, defeating city councilor Kermit Staggers with 57 percent of the vote.

and…

“If Mike were to change his ability to let citizens participate, to let longtime friends participate, to let neighborhood organizations participate, he might gather a lot of support, but he has been very much an individual leader who doesn’t really involve anyone else in his decision-making,” said Hildebrand. “He’ll have a hard time getting support from anybody if that’s the kind of person he continues to be.”

As for Huether’s contention that being mayor of Sioux Falls is his “dream job,” his former campaign manager disputes that characterization and says they had conversations about him running for governor before the mayoral push.

“Mike has wanted to be governor of South Dakota since he was a kid,” says Hildebrand. “It was never about being the mayor of Sioux Falls, it was always about being governor. He came back from San Antonio (where he worked for Citibank) with a big fat file that said, Huether for Governor.”

Read it here.

So, coming back from out of state, Huether was said to have a “big fat file that said, Huether for Governor.”   Wow.  Although, I’m not shocked at his utter hubris.

Even though he’s the state’s highest elected Democrat, does anyone think Huether could get past a Republican in the general election?  Of for that matter, could he survive a primary against a Democrat with more statewide appeal?

Bob Mercer was writing on-line today advocating for more government in the face of people wanting to change government:

Requiring circulators to register at a county auditor’s office or the secretary of state office before they start gathering signatures would be a safeguard.

The circulator could be asked for photo identification and proof of current residential address, and for the specific ballot measure or candidate, then sign a statement pledging to follow the petition laws.

In turn, the circulator would receive official certification.

and…

The recent crimes committed by candidates Bosworth and Walker, and the ongoing controversies during this signature-gathering season for ballot measures, point to the need for steps to better preserve the integrity of our democratic system.

Read it here.

I’m not so sure I agree. The recent crimes committed by Bosworth and Walker were successfully investigated and prosecuted by Attorney General Marty Jackley.  So, what’s the argument supporting the need for more bureaucracy in the face of it? Just so we can go “Yay! We did something!”

Do we really need a licensure board for petitioners?  Or, is what we really need a shift of responsibility?

When I was in the SOS office, concerns over problems in the election process came up then as well, as they had with Chris Nelson before us, Joyce Hazeltine before him, etc. The primary problem is the the Secretary of State’s office is not designed legally to be anything except a very administrative filing agency for the documents of government.

The only review authority it has over elections matter is very, very limited, and purely administrative in terms of determining the validity of signatures, and the timeliness of when things are filed.

Any concerns or questions go directly to the Attorney General. The problem is, white collar petition scofflaws rank pretty low when put up against rapists & murderers. But because of their extremely political nature, and potential impact of upcoming elections, they can’t be ignored.  EXCEPT, according to case law, when they’re the subject of an upcoming election. Then, they can only be addressed only after the election.

Not an enviable position for our state’s chief law enforcement officer.   So. why not shift responsibility slightly?

Why not give the Secretary of State more authority to reject – or better yet, refer petitions upon suspicion of impropriety?  And as opposed to the Board of Elections being a mostly useless appendage dealing with administrative matters and suggesting legislation, why not give them a quasi-judicial function?  Let them sit in judgement on whether to reject or accept petitions and candidate controversies, and leave the bad, bad stuff to the AG?

Or is there a better way? What do you think?