Attorney General’s Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage Decision
PIERRE – The United States Supreme Court has ordered that every State must recognize and license same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court order should be treated as effective immediately absent further direction from the Courts, with the practical recognition that a reasonable period of time may be necessary for state and local officials to implement this new rule of law.
-30-
In an editorial printed in the Watertown Public Opinion this week, the editorial board would appear to be giving love to Congresswoman Kristi Noem as to whether she should consider seeking the office of Governor in 2018:
There also appears to be a solid movement favoring a gubernatorial candidacy by U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem of Castlewood which, if she decides to make a move for the governor’s chair, would potentially create atleast a threeway primary.
This isn’t the first time her name has come up as a potential candidate for governor. Political experts point to her experience in one statewide primary in 2010 and three general election campaigns in 2010, ’12 and ’14 as valuable assets. Plus, throw in the historical significance of her being the first woman Governor in South Dakota history, and it makes her possible entry into the race even more intriguing.
Read it here at the Watertown Public Opinion (Subscription required)
Do you think Kristi Noem could possibly be South Dakota’s first female Governor?
It didn’t happen with Wismer this last election, as I don’t think anyone thought she could legitimately compete with Daugaard. But Kristi is a horse of a different color, and an electoral force unto herself. Would the historical significance of her being a legitimate candidate who can win a general election give her a boost among female voters across the board as compared to her potential male competitors?
Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional
PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that a very divided United States Supreme Court has issued its decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al., holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses between two people of the same-sex. The Court additionally held that states are required to recognize lawfully licensed out-of-state marriages between two people of the same sex.
“It has always been my position that the citizens of our state should define marriage, and not the federal government,” said Jackley. “Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have now determined neither the States nor our citizens have the right or the ability to define marriage. Because we are a Nation of laws the State will be required to follow the Court’s order that every State must recognize and license same-sex marriage.”
In November 2006, South Dakota voters approved a Constitutional Amendment making marriage valid only between a man and a woman. South Dakota voters approved this amendment by a vote of 172,242 to 160,173. South Dakota Constitution Article XXI, Section 9 mandated that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. In addition, SDCL 25-1-1 defines marriage as a personal relation between man and a woman. The U.S. Supreme Court has now held our Constitution and statutes violate U.S. Constitution.
South Dakota’s constitutional provision and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota in Rosenbrahn et al. v. Daugaard et al. in January 2015. That District Court stayed the enforcement of its judgment pending the appeal. The Eighth Circuit previously deferred its ruling pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell. The Rosenbrahn case is currently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Significantly, today’s Obergefell decision makes clear that the law of this Circuit was previously controlled by the Bruning decision, which upheld Nebraska’s Constitution and state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Accordingly, South Dakota has been acting under controlling case precedent.
Gov. Daugaard’s Statement On Same-Sex Marriage Decision
PIERRE, S.D. – This morning, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
“I would have preferred for this change to come through the democratic process, rather than the courts,” said Gov. Daugaard. “We are a nation of laws, and the state will follow the law. I will be working with the Attorney General to ascertain what this ruling means for state and local governments.”
-30-
From Newsmax:
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, an historic decision that extends gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide.
The question before the justices in the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges was whether the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
The justices also were considering the question of whether a state is required to recognize a same-sex couple’s legal marriage performed out-of-state.
Read it all here. And more from USA Today:
The justices ruled that states cannot deny gay men and lesbians the same marriage rights enjoyed for thousands of years by opposite-sex couples. Within days if not hours, the decision is expected to trigger same-sex marriages in states that still ban the practice.
The landmark ruling ends a legal battle that had brewed in the states for 45 years, from Minnesota in the 1970s to Hawaii in the 1990s and New England after the turn of the century. The final turning point came in 2013, when the high court forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages and allowed them to resume in California.
Had the court upheld gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky, it would have jeopardized federal court rulings striking down similar bans in 20 of the 37 states where same-sex marriage has been declared legal. Quickly, the number of gay marriage states could have been cut in half.
Instead, the court’s finding that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the Constitution will make gay marriage legal in the remaining 13 states, from Georgia to North Dakota. And it will make battles over religious-freedom and non-discrimination laws the next battleground in the nation’s continuing struggle with gay rights.
and…
Throughout the battle, a patient legal strategy, savvy public relations campaign and superior financing and organization propelled the gay marriage movement past an outgunned and underfunded opposition.
What do you think this means for the residents of the State of South Dakota?
I was speaking with a few politicos the other day and the topic of the ACLU filing a lawsuit via attorney Brendan Johnson came up – Specifically the “why” behind the challenge to the deadline for new political parties. In case you’re not familiar with it:
The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a South Dakota law that moved the deadline for new political parties striving for a place on the 2016 ballot.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of South Dakota’s Libertarian Party and Constitution Party, challenges a section of the law that shifted the deadline for new parties to submit declarations to participate in primary elections backward by four weeks — from the last Tuesday in March prior to the date of the primary election to the first Tuesday in March. The plaintiffs are asking the deadline be set for no earlier than March 29 for a party that wants to participate in South Dakota’s primary election, and August 1 for a party that does not need to participate in a primary election.
and..
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of South Dakota, and Brendan Johnson of Robins Kaplan LLP.
The discussion centered around an assumption that the movement to refer Senate Bill 69 (which in part was designed to make South Dakota more compliant with federal mandates to allow at least 45 days for military voting) is likely not going to be successful one, and may fall short of it’s goals. The talk was that, recognizing that likely outcome, the liberal powers that be decided to move forward with the lawsuit in an attempt to take up another front against the clean-up legislation.
With the referred law petition turn-in deadline looming on Monday at 5PM, there are three measures that are being currently circulated – The aforementioned Senate Bill 69 (Petition & election deadline reform act), Senate Bill 177 (Youth Minimum Wage), and House Bill 1179 (Changing the definition of a veteran).
What do you think? Are the petitions to refer legislative measures going to squeak in with sufficient signatures? Or are they going to fall short? And is the lawsuit a recognition of that fact?
Jurisdiction Over Marijuana in South Dakota and Our Reservations
PIERRE – The possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana is a violation of both federal and state law. As South Dakota’s Attorney General, I respect each Tribes authority to pass laws that govern Indian persons within Indian Country.
It is equally important to recognize that South Dakota law prohibits the internal and physical possession, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana by:
(1) all non-Indian persons anywhere in South Dakota including within Indian country;
(2) all persons, including tribal members, outside of Indian Country.
These principles are well established and supported under U.S. Supreme Court and South Dakota Supreme Court decisions.
Since the United States Supreme Court’s 1978 Oliphant opinion, the law has been clear that the inherent criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribe does not extend to non-Indians. As far back as the 1881 McBratney opinion the U.S. Supreme Court found that state courts have jurisdiction over, among other matters, victimless crimes committed by non-Indians within Indian country.
Furthermore, the South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1977 Winckler opinion found that state courts have jurisdiction over all persons where an element of the crime is committed outside of Indian country. The South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1991 Vandermay opinion reaffirmed that state court jurisdiction exists for criminal conduct by non-Indians with Indian country.
“I want to encourage Tribal leaders to continue to work with state authorities to better ensure our respective laws are followed, public safety on our roads remains a consideration, and that both Indian and non-Indian persons are not put in harm’s way by the jurisdiction complexities being created by our federal government,” said Attorney General Jackley.
-30-
AFP South Dakota Responds To Supreme Court Ruling
Court Decision Provides No Relief To The Many Struggling Under Obamacare
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Today, Americans for Prosperity South Dakota released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this morning to uphold the federal Obamacare Exchange in the controversial case, King v. Burwell:
“The Court’s decision today offers no relief to Obamacare’s many victims,” said Americans for Prosperity State Director Ben Lee. “For far too long, Obamacare’s burdensome taxes and mandates have wreaked havoc on American families and businesses. This law was hurting people yesterday, and will continue to do so tomorrow.”
“Obamacare remains wildly unpopular and for good reason: it limits access to care and has sent premiums skyrocketing. Americans for Prosperity South Dakota will continue pressing Congress to provide relief from the law’s expensive mandates, and continue fighting for patient-centered reforms that work.”
A spokesman for the chapter said they planned to direct the public to voice their discontent with the law by signing the petition at www.americansforprosperity.org/burwell.
The national organization also announced plans to launch a significant digital buy with an ad advocating for people’s health over politics, which will reach most major media markets in the United States.
Watch the video here:
Noem Statement on King v. Burwell Decision
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell:
“I will not be deterred by today’s decision. The President’s health care law is bad policy – plain and simple. Thousands of South Dakotans have already suffered the consequences of this law and there’s no sign of those burdens lifting. Many in our state have lost access to their preferred doctors and health insurance plans. Others remain caught in the confusion and complexity of the law. Still others are grappling with the fact that their family’s health costs are scheduled to skyrocket again next year. South Dakotans deserve better. We will continue to work toward a patient-centered alternative that will finally repeal the President’s health care law and replace it with a health policy that works for American families.”
###