Author: @SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota Joins to Protect Private Property Rights from Federal Prairie Dog Protections 

@SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota Joins to Protect Private Property Rights from Federal Prairie Dog Protections

Marty JackleyPIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 7 other states in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief to support asking the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling striking down federal protections for the Utah prairie dog on private property.

“The States have historically managed the wildlife within their borders. Federal regulation of the white or black-tailed prairie dogs on state, local or private land encroaches on powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment and individual property rights,” said Jackley.

The States’ brief takes the position that federal regulation of the Utah prairie dog on private lands violates the Constitution, and that the state of Utah has the authority to manage wildlife within its borders. The States argue that Utah’s rural communities are hurt by the “uncontrolled proliferation” of the Utah prairie dog.

Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents. There are five species of prairie dogs native to North America. The Utah prairie dog is a member of the white-tailed group.

South Dakota is home to the black-tailed prairie dog that is currently listed by federal authorities as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of state control by determining that federal rules protecting the threatened species were allowing prairie dogs to overtake a town.

The property owners from Utah said the small, burrowing animals damaged the airport and cemetery and interrupted funerals with their barking.

-30-

Should Republicans take a look at revising the gender enforced rules in the bylaws?

@SoDakCampaigns

North Dakota Republicans had a new state party chair elected this past weekend, but the elections for other officers didn’t pass without some controversy, specifically those regarding some bylaw enforced gender rules in the bylaws as reported by our good friend to the north, sayanythingblog.com:

You see, the NDGOP has two vice chair position. There is a Vice Chairman and a Vice Chairwoman. You can read about the definitions of these positions in the NDGOP rules, but basically the duty of the Vice Chairman is to “preside at all meetings of the State Committee” when the Chairman is unavailable while the duties of the Vice Chairwoman is to “assist the State Chairman, act as liaison between the Republican Party and the Republican Women of North Dakota, and to perform such other duties as the State Chairman may from time to time request.”

There is also a strange provision for vacancies in the Chairman position whereby the Vice Chairman succeeds the Chairman if that person is a woman, and the Vice Chairwoman succeeds the Chairman if that person is a man.

It’s all a little strange.

Anyway, I spoke with Toman about her bid and her position is that the Vice Chairman position is and should be gender-neutral under current rules. The position of some others in the party, on the other hand, is that the two sub-Chairman positions are clearly defined by gender and that the rules can’t simply be ignored.

Toman wanted to be Vice Chairman, not Vice Chairwoman.

Read it all here.

South Dakota Republicans aren’t immune to similar rules. In fact, I believe they go from the lower levels of organization of the party at the county level to the top, at the national level; where rules state if the Chair is male, the vice-chair is female.

Do gender enforced roles help keep an equal balance in the party, since men tend to be over-represented in the world of politics? Or is the gender based selection of the vice chair an outdated concept which actually prevents things, such as women serving as chair and vice chair at one time?

Your thoughts?

Another one in for the 2016 Legislative races

@SoDakCampaigns

I had a note from Eric Leggett on Friday to make note of his intent to run for the Open seat in his district in the 2016 races. 

That would have him as a candidate for Pat Kirschman’s District 15 House Seat. Kirschman is ineligible to run again due to term limits. 

Leggett was an unsuccessful independent candidate for that office in 2014, and I anticipate he’ll run as an Indy for the office again. It’s not like District 15 hasn’t elected Indys before. That’s where Jenna Haggar got her start!

I suspect Eric learned a lot on his first run, and will fare much better his second time out. Good luck!

(And keep those e-mails of intention coming!)

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Reining in the Obama EPA

@SoDakCampaigns

thuneheadernew

Reining in the Obama EPA
By Senator John Thune

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressI strongly believe in the outdoor heritage that makes South Dakota such an amazing place to live, work, and raise a family. Whether it’s earning a living off of the land, like so many of our hard-working farmers and ranchers, or enjoying a weekend pheasant hunt with friends and family, South Dakotans take seriously their responsibility to help protect the outdoors.

While certain protections are necessary to ensure these resources are available for future generations, there are limits to the federal government’s role. In some cases, the rules and regulations that come out of Washington, D.C., specifically the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can often cause more harm than good in places like South Dakota.

Many of the Washington bureaucrats who write and implement these rules have never stepped foot in the states in which the rules will apply. Therein lies the problem: Rule-makers in Washington’s concrete jungle are forcing agriculture producers, homeowners, and small businesses across the country to comply with rules that will have devastating effects in rural America.

Take, for example, last week’s EPA announcement on the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which is one of the largest federal government power grabs over private land we’ve ever seen. The EPA’s broad new definition of U.S. waterways could classify a small ditch or creek on South Dakota farmland or housing subdivisions as a waterway, which under these new rules, could now be subject to federal permitting, compliance costs, and potentially significant penalties and fines. I am especially concerned about the EPA claiming jurisdiction in the Prairie Pothole Region throughout East River.

The EPA delivered a one-two punch to South Dakota farmers last week, when following its WOTUS announcement, it proposed new Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) volume requirements for 2014-2016. Not only do the EPA’s proposed requirements fall short of the RFS volumes first prescribed by Congress, but they fail to provide the certainty needed to spur investment in our domestic biofuels industry.

I strongly oppose EPA’s overreach, and will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to do whatever is possible to block these heavy-handed regulations and help mitigate the damage they will inevitably cause to South Dakotans.

###

US Senator Mike Rounds Weekly Column: Protecting the 2nd Amendment

@SoDakCampaigns

RoundsPressHeader

Protecting the 2nd Amendment
Senator Mike Rounds
June 5, 2015

 MikeRounds official SenateAs an avid hunter and lifelong gun owner, I have always been a strong defender of the Second Amendment. We cherish our right to bear arms in South Dakota, where we have a strong outdoor heritage and lively economy based on sportsmen activity. This fundamental right is embedded in the Constitution and must be fiercely protected. That’s why I’m greatly concerned about the Obama administration’s latest attempt to circumvent congress and impose sweeping new gun restrictions on the American people. It is an assault on the Second Amendment.

The Department of Justice recently announced plans to impose these new regulations on gun ownership through executive order in the coming months. These new regulations range from imposing new requirements for gun storage to allowing the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to impose new regulations on pistols. The heavy hand of government is once again attempting to penalize law abiding citizens. What this administration hasn’t figured out is that these proposals penalize the wrong people and ignore the Constitutional rights of citizens—an all too common theme under this president. This assault on the Second Amendment will do nothing to reduce criminal activity. South Dakota has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country, and one of the lowest crime rates. In my opinion, that’s not a coincidence.

We all want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but the administration’s proposals are too broad and threaten the rights of law-abiding gun owners across the nation. These new rules make it harder for ordinary citizens who pose no threat to society from exercising their second amendment rights. Any changes that effect these constitutional rights should be enacted legislatively. Regulations that aim to prevent serious offenders from obtaining a gun must not unfairly root out other prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.

I’m also concerned about how broad and how far the ATF will go when finalizing these new gun restrictions. Based on the president’s previous track record of imposing intrusive regulations, I have little faith these new gun rules would be reasonable or well-received. The president knows he would not have the support of Congress if he tried to pass these new rules through legislation. He failed to convince Congress to enact new gun restrictions just two years ago and I am concerned that this is just a back-door attempt to allow unelected bureaucrats to change our gun laws. I’ve always believed that if a rule that will affect millions of Americans is a good one, it should be able to stand up to Congressional scrutiny.

I’m also concerned that President Obama’s new gun regulations could make it so onerous to purchase and own a gun that it deters law-abiding citizens from even having one. Too many of us know too well what can happen when too much government red tape stands in the way. In preventing gun violence, we must focus on the offenders, not the weapon.

Our right to bear arms is one of our most important rights as citizens. In South Dakota and across the nation, hunters, gun collectors and sportsmen alike take seriously their responsibilities of owning a gun. We must push back against President Obama’s anti-gun agenda to protect the Second Amendment. As a member of the United States Senate, I will continue to work to defend the right to bear arms and put a stop to the president’s overreaching gun policies.

###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Where the Billions Go

@SoDakCampaigns

noem press header

Where the Billions Go
By Rep. Kristi Noem
June 5, 2015

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014Month after month, nearly every American worker makes payments to the federal government. And year after year, our concerns increase about the lack of genuine accountability over how those hard-earned dollars are spent. I believe it’s reached a tipping point.

As an example, in FY2014, the Unemployment Insurance program made $5.6 billion worth of improper payments. That means about 12 percent of their overall payments went to the wrong recipient, were made out for the wrong dollar amount, were offered without proper documentation, or were given to a recipient who used those taxpayer funds improperly.

The same was true for the Supplemental Security Income program, which is intended to help give a hand up to disabled Americans who have limited income and resources. This program made $5.1 billion in improper payments in FY2014, totaling about 9.2 percent of the program’s overall expenditures. We can do better.

Earlier this month, I joined House Republicans in introducing a series of bills intended to strengthen the integrity of these programs.

I led on a bill, for instance, that aims to prevent wanted felons from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. It’s almost unbelievable that this is a problem – that a felon can evade prosecution for months or years, but somehow still receive checks from the government every 30 days or so. It has to stop and my bill, the CUFF Act, helps accomplish that.

More specifically, the CUFF Act ensures anyone who is violating a condition of their probation or parole or running from a felony charge – in other words, a crime carrying a minimum term of one or more years of prison – will not be able to receive Social Security benefits. It’s that simple. If passed, the legislation would save hardworking taxpayers as much as $4.8 billion over the next decade, according to preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates. To me, it seems like an obvious correction to make.

Another bill introduced – the PERP Act – states that you can’t receive unemployment benefits if you’re in prison. Technically, those in jail or prison aren’t supposed to be receiving benefits, but they do because of unclear legal language.

In Illinois, for instance, more than $2 million in unemployment benefits went to inmates, according to a 2012 report. In New Jersey, a 2013 audit showed 20,000 inmates were paid nearly $24 million in state and federal benefits. In Pennsylvania, more than 1,000 inmates were collecting about $334 every week, according to another 2013 report. The PERP Act would close the loopholes and ensure your money stays out of the hands of prisoners.

Without question, more must be done to respect your hard-earned tax dollars. Our confidence in the federal government’s ability to spend our money responsibly has been broken – and for good reason. The package of bills I helped introduce earlier this month would allow us to save billions of dollars, but we still have a lot more to do.

###

Governor Dennis Daugaard’s Weekly Column: The Good Old Summertime – Outdoors In South Dakota

@SoDakCampaigns

daugaardheader

The Good Old Summertime – Outdoors In South Dakota
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

DaugaardWhen I was a young boy, I couldn’t wait for summer. After nine months of school, June meant a break from studies and long, adventure-filled days outdoors in South Dakota.

Oh, sure, I still had work to do, just like most kids who grew up on the farms and in the small towns of South Dakota. I worked in the bean fields, did chores around the farm and helped in any other ways the family needed.

But when the work was done, I spent many warm, lazy days canoeing on the Big Sioux River, swimming and exploring the wooded areas along the river bottom. Summer also meant 4-H camp, a great opportunity to meet other young South Dakotans and share the activities and crafts of the 4-H program.

Once, on a family visit to the Black Hills, my sisters and I had the incredible experience of riding in a helicopter to view Mount Rushmore up close. I’ll never forget that, just as I’ll never forget the simpler times spent outdoors in our great state. I grew up with a respect and deep affection for South Dakota’s outdoors.

Many things have changed in South Dakota since I was a youngster, but the outdoor opportunities remain. In fact, opportunities have greatly expanded. People of all ages have more choices for outdoor activities today than we ever did when I was young. Think of all the bike paths in the communities, the swimming pools, the hiking adventures, the day camps and the summer recreation programs that invite boys and girls to get outside and get active.

More than that, think of all the facilities and recreation opportunities provided through the work of our Game, Fish and Parks Department. The department has upgraded and expanded trails, campgrounds, boating facilities and outdoor programs tremendously in recent years. If there’s something you want to do outdoors, Game, Fish and Parks probably has a program for you. Whether you want the experience of spending time in a modern campground or fishing pond, or you just want to take your son or daughter for a walk on a nature trail, you can do it here in South Dakota.

To recognize what an abundance of opportunities we all have in South Dakota, I recently declared June as “Great Outdoors Month.’’ It’s a way to encourage each of our citizens to connect or re-connect with nature in a safe and healthy way. It’s a celebration of the fun that’s to be had outdoors here in South Dakota.

And, if you wish, you can still take a helicopter ride to see Mount Rushmore up close the way I did as a youngster.

There’s a lot to do outdoors in South Dakota in the summer. Take advantage of the opportunities! Maybe we’ll meet along the trails.

-30-

Marty Jackley statement on potential Bosworth sentencing

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2

From Attorney General Marty Jackley, a further explanation of the sentencing guidelines in the Bosworth case, the future of her medical license, and how much of this could have been avoided by Dr. Bosworth’s own actions:

Marty JackleyWhile the state does not usually discuss plea negotiations, based upon the continued misrepresentations of both law and fact by Mrs Bosworth and the Bosworth campaign representatives I will generally confirm: 

1). Mrs Bosworth’s public statement (ap) that she would have been required to plead to every felony count is absolutely false and inaccurate and her lawyers have been advised of that in writing;

2) While the Attorney General has many responsibilities, licensing physicians is not one of those responsibilities.  The state medical licensing board made up of South Dakota physicians determines medical licensing issues. Because at the Secretary of State’s request the Attorney General handled the criminal prosecution the Attorney General is not involved in providing legal advice to the medical board in relation to Mrs Bosworth’s potential medical license issue;

3) Before bringing any charges I consulted with my colleague state attorneys general and there are several cases of similar type petition violations such as the Butch Morgan’s case out of Indiana;

4) All plea negotiation attempts by the Attorney General would have put Mrs Bosworth in a better place then she currently is in relation to any potential sentence or permanent record.

Whether or not Mrs. Bosworth’s continuing actions and statements constitute acceptance of responsibility will be for the court to determine at sentencing.

Democrat Mike Huether: Do as I say, not as I do. Bus rides for kids bad. Billboards featuring Huether good.

@SoDakCampaigns

Did we just land in opposite land!?!   The quote in today’s Argus Leader from Democratic Mayor Mike Huether just floored me, as he came up with the flimsiest of excuses for his backhanded swat at the City Council’s approval of free bus rides to kids in the summer:

Mayor Mike Huether won’t sign off on a new city busing program offering free rides to Sioux Falls youth this summer.

A resolution passed by the Sioux Falls City Council last week to waive rider fees for people 18 and under through summer break sat at City Hall for seven days before Mayor Huether returned it to the city clerk Wednesday evening without his signature.

and..

” I do believe the resolution has some merit. It was the process, the rush and the lack of prudent due diligence that I could not defend nor support,” he said.

Read it here.

“It was the process, the rush, and the lack of prudent due diligence?”  Is he kidding?  Is he freaking kidding?   I ask, because process didn’t seem to be so concerning to him over when he was plastering his face all over billboards in the See my face?- I’m running for Governor in 2018 “Sioux Falls Has Jobs” web site debacle:

Mayor Mike Huether unveiled an ad campaign and website Thursday aimed at helping employers fill more than 2,000 job vacancies that exist in the city.

The effort includes billboards and kiosk ads that prominently feature the mayor and the address for a new website…

and…

“I’m OK with it happening, but I am just surprised that we didn’t ever talk about it as a council,” she said. “I don’t want to be negative, because it has the potential to be a great thing, but I wish I had known more ahead of time.”

Council chairman Dean Karsky agreed.

“I think it’s a fantastic way to go out and market Sioux Falls. We’re not advocating for any one particular industry, employer or sector,” he said. “But I think it would have been nice for the administration to advise the council or at least an informational meeting. We’re the ones that put together the budget. We shouldn’t be surprised by stuff that’s coming down the pipe like this.”

Read that here.

And how much did each cost?  According to the above article, the city of Sioux Falls as directed by Huether “entered two separate contracts worth about $8,000 and $3,500 for kiosk and billboard advertising” which prominently featured the mayor.  According to this article,  “A student rider pass during the summer months, offered since 2010, has yielded modest interest – 185 kids took advantage of the $25 seasonal passes last summer.”     That’s $4625.

So, according to the mayor, spending $11,500 to plaster the mayor’s glamor shot photos all over Sioux Falls is ok to secretly do on a discretionary basis. But when in public session the City Council decides to spend $4600 to let kids ride public transit to the pool…?  “It was…. the rush and the lack of prudent due diligence that (he) could not defend nor support.”  And we have Huether’s backhanded treatment of the measure to accompany his passive-aggressive comment.

Sorry. But I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mike Huether. And try explaining this one on the campaign trail.