Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Here’s the latest on COVID hospitalizations from Sanford Health:

Hospitalized and ventilator users are up, as well as the percentage of unvaccinated in comparison to last weeks’ numbers:

Those numbers continue to be creeping upwards..

 

As the legislature prepares to tackle a solemn subject, you can count on Rapid City’s Citizens for Liberty to bring the crazy.

So this mass e-mail just went out to legislators from Tonchi Weaver representing the group, as she encourages them to expand the special session in November to prevent “injection with an unwanted gene serum.” And no, I’m not kidding:

From: gopherbroke@reagan.com <gopherbroke@reagan.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 
To: gopherbroke@reagan.com <gopherbroke@reagan.com>
Subject: Special session

Dear Senator:

If the legislature convenes a special session to deal with the impeachment of AG Ravnsborg, why not also hear draft bills 55 (Hansen, Odenbach) and 76 (Gosch)? 

The impeachment question is important, but whether or not an employer has the right to coerce employees to be injected with an unwanted gene serum, or to demand vaccination status is even more important to the average South Dakotan.  

Laws protect employees from sexual coercion.  Medical coercion is even more invasive, and all the risk is assumed by the person receiving the unwanted shot.

We encourage you to hear these necessary bills.

Respectfully, 

Tonchi Weaver
SD Citizens for Liberty
Rapid City, SD
605-348-7521 (h)  605-390-4078 (c) 

“whether or not an employer has the right to coerce employees to be injected with an unwanted gene serum.” Not sure what you say about that.

Looking for someone to bring the crazy? Apparently Citizens for Liberty managed to do that and more.

Article III    § 31.   Convening of special sessions upon petition. In addition to the provisions of Article IV, § 3, the Legislature may be convened in special session by the presiding officers of both houses upon the written request of two-thirds of the members of each house. The petition of request shall state the purposes of the session, and only business encompassed by those purposes may be transacted.

– Amendment proposed by SL 1990, ch 2, approved November 6, 1990.

In 1990, a constitutional amendment was passed to grant the South Dakota Legislature additional authority to call itself back for a special session when two-thirds of the members of each house petition for a special session for a specific purpose.  That authority has only been utilized by the South Dakota Legislature on a very limited basis since that time, and up until now, only for redistricting.

According to a 2021 draft memorandum on the topic from the Legislative Research Council:

The Legislature’s ability to call a special session was approved by the voters in 1990. As a result, Article III, § 31 provides, “In addition to the provisions of Article IV, § 3, the Legislature may be convened in special session by the presiding officers of both houses upon the written request of two-thirds of the members of each house. The petition of request shall state the purposes of the session, and only business encompassed by those purposes may be transacted.” Since 1990, the Legislature has called special sessions in 2001 and 2011. Both sessions were called for the purpose of redistricting. The Legislature has also called for a redistricting special session to be convened on November 8, 2021.

Read that here.

As noted, the “Special Session by Legislature” has previously been exercised three times, and you can find a couple of them on-line if you look hard enough:

Redistricting is a fairly ministerial task, so while people are going to quibble about where the lines are drawn, people agreeing to hold a session for that purpose is fairly non-controversial.

But now we’re faced with a call for a special session for a more controversial purpose, for the impeachment of a state official. In connection with the call for the convening of the legislature, the Speaker of the House is setting forth that the vote on whether or not to come into session will be held as secret from the citizens of South Dakota:

..South Dakota’s House Speaker Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, told the Argus Leader this week the names of lawmakers who sign the petition for a “Special Legislative Session on Impeachment” will not be released to the public.

“We’re just voting for a meeting. That’s all we’re voting for,” he said. “So ultimately, who voted on whether or not we should get together is not relevant.”

and..

And though he intends to make resolutions, testimony and committee meetings regarding impeachment open, he cites a provision in South Dakota’s open records laws allowing correspondence among public officials for keeping petition signatures secret.

and..

In the Senate, two-thirds of members are also required to sign on to the House leaders’ petition and those names won’t be public either. That’s because Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck, the Watertown Republican who presides over that chamber, said he’s following the House’s lead.

Read that all here.

As you can read in the article, open government advocates disagree with the decision.  The law for “correspondence among public officials” is the one being cited to give the legislature an out for releasing the vote on the petition. But what does that law actually say?

1-27-1.5. Certain records not open to inspection and copying.

The following records are not subject to §§ 1-27-1, 1-27-1.1, 1-27-1.3, and § 1-27-1.23:

(19)    Personal correspondence, memoranda, notes, calendars or appointment logs, or other personal records or documents of any public official or employee;

Read that here.

But that’s personal correspondence. Under this law,  I’m not sure how one considers the actual written petition to impeach as personal correspondence.

While it’s noted that legislators are “just voting for a meeting,” the State Constitution is pretty clear that the special session demands that it can only be held “upon the written request of two-thirds of the members of each house.”  Written is definitely stated. So, these written documents should be filed somewhere.

The bigger question is whether they will ever see the light of day. Because the State Constitution does provide the legislature a more clear-cut out, but it’s not going to play as well when it’s invoked:

Article III  § 15.   Open legislative sessions–Exception. The sessions of each house and of the committee of the whole shall be open, unless when the business is such as ought to be kept secret.

That’s the portion of the State Constitution that allows the South Dakota State Legislature to invoke “we’ll do what we want,” and decide for themselves what they want to keep from the voters of the state. I’m not sure any court has tested the “ought to be kept secret” portion of the constitution, but it would make an interesting debate as to what scenarios the courts believe that would entail.

Now, not all legislators are so concerned with keeping where they stand on a special session hidden from the public.  In fact, some are more open about it, such as State Senator Dave Wheeler:

His position is certainly not enviable, but legislators were elected to make decisions on behalf of all their constituents. And there is a general expectation from the people of South Dakota is that they will do so in the light of day.

The past session, there were a number of legislators who stood up and were eager to be on the record, so much so that members of House leadership held a press conference. Which makes the more recent reluctance to be on the record a bit confusing.

I’m sure we’ll see this play out more in the days to come while we wait to see what the legislature decides to do.

Stay tuned.

Sen. President @LeeSchoenbeck has confirmed this news. https://t.co/69AgqxaJez

— Joe Sneve (@Argus_Joe) September 21, 2021

So, the Pierre City Commission seems hell-bent on imposing a heavier hand of government and a number of restrictions on property owners despite an overwhelming number of people testifying against it.  Nevermind the exception of one person who believes that if someone has something junky in their yard then they should be thrown out of the darn town:

“Now you have it that it’s mandatory that all of these apartments can be inspected,” Maher said. “I don’t agree that you have the right to come into all of my buildings and inspect, no more than the tenant that lives there will let you in. That is a right of private property that you’re changing from that I’m surprised, in this state, we would even think about that. So that’s a major change that I’d ask you to think about, not the nitty-gritty of this, but is this good public policy to start imposing on the people that have built these apartments?”

and..

“I had offered, and I know the homebuilders’ association offered and said, ‘Hey, let’s sit down in a working group, committee, whatever, and get us stakeholders involved and sit down and work this out, see if we can come up with some alternatives that everybody can live with,’” Moses said. “That hasn’t happened. It should happen. I don’t know why you don’t want to do that. That’s the way to get the consensus is get us involved.”

and it goes downhill from here….

“I think it is really essential that people hold their renters responsible or be responsible themselves,” Likness said. “The renters are not fulfilling their obligation. I would really like to see the city clean some of those places up, and if you have to remove their right to rent, that would be fine, too.”

Read the entire story here.

So, what happens if someone has their right to rent “removed?”  Do they have to live in a car, or are they simply banished to Fort Pierre?  I can’t help but be reminded of something else. According to wikipedia..

Redlining is the systematic denial of various services to residents of specific, often racially associated, neighborhoods or communities, either explicitly or through the selective raising of prices. While the best known examples of redlining have involved denial of financial services such as banking or insurance, other services such as health care or even supermarkets have been denied to residents.

I have to think that denying someone the ability to rent to move the undesirables out of the neighborhood is bumping up pretty closely against this definition.

Regardless, from the feedback finding it’s way to me across the state, I don’t think this issue is remotely close to being done.

SD Treasurer Josh Haeder Elected to serve on National Association of State Treasurers Leadership Team  

Haeder Unanimously Elected Vice Chair of NAST 

PIERRE– The National Association of State Treasurers announced its 2022 leadership election results at this week’s Annual Business & Membership Meeting in Chicago. South Dakota State Treasurer Josh Haeder will serve as the organizations Vice Chair starting January 1, 2022. 

Haeder said, “I am energized and committed to working with an exceptional and diverse group of Treasurers on both sides of the aisle. My focus is to share our states vision of returning unclaimed funds to rightful owners, promote sound fiscal management and build lasting relationships that benefit our mission of government that serves the people.” 

State Treasurer Josh Haeder was unanimously elected by State Treasurer’s across the country to serve as the Vice Chair of the National Association of State Treasurer’s (NAST) 

Prior to being elected South Dakota’s 33rd state treasurer, Josh Haeder was the managing partner of Haeder Organization, LLC based in Huron, SD. Haeder Organization is a property management company that focuses on affordable housing and lodging.  Haeder served 4 1/2 years as the Northeast Director for US Senator Mike Rounds who is a member of the Banking Committee.  

Haeder’s experience includes time as the chief operating officer for a national credit counseling agency that assists individuals and families considering bankruptcy. He also spent several years in business and agricultural banking management. Haeder’s education includes a B.S. in Public Safety Management and a M.A. in Intelligence and Global Security from Point Park University.  

 Haeder has been married to his wife Amanda for eight years and they have two young daughters. In his spare time, Haeder is a public address announcer for sporting activities, pheasant hunting, fishing and watching Minnesota Twins baseball.   

  Josh Haeder is passionate about serving South Dakota by protecting citizens’ money and state accounts against cyber threats and through financial wellness education for young people. Regarding his public service, Haeder lives by the quote “If you really want to receive joy and happiness, then serve others with all your heart. Lift their burden, and your own burden will be lighter.” 

### 

Apparently the salad days are upon the South Dakota Democrat Party with their new executive director, Berk Ermergerd, or whatever his name is. Because they seem to be spending money like they have it in their latest report filed with the Federal Elections Commission yesterday:

SDDP September FEC Monthly Report by Pat Powers on Scribd

Starting with $43,321.12 cash on hand, Democrats added a reasonable $24,722.65 to the total for $68,043.77.  And then they spent $48,061.98, leaving them less than they raised with $19,981.79.   In comparison, the State Republican Party is sitting on $82,683.13 in their federal account, and unlike Democrats, they usually keep a healthy amount in their state account while Dems traditionally don’t.

Dems are trending into dangerous territory, as of the $24-25K they brought in, only $6,781.48 was money they actually raised, and $17,941.17 was their monthly welfare check. $15k came in from the Democrats Grassroots Victory Fund, and $2,941 from the DNC.

This month state Dems did write the big and bad check to the Federal Elections Commission for their $7,200 fine levied for campaign finance violations.

That might attribute for some of their extremely high cash burn rate this month, but when you take in $24.7k, and spend $41k plus a $7200 fine, even without the fine, the spending is still not sustainable without a significant turnaround in income.

Stay tuned for more.

The Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan had a story yesterday about the Lt. Governor’s speech at the OGP Lincoln Day Dinner, calling for unity in the party moving into next years’ elections: