Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Applauds Senate Passage of Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Applauds Senate Passage of
Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act

WASHINGTON— Today, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) voted to support the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. The Senate unanimously approved this legislation, with a vote of 99-0. It will now move to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

“Our men and women in uniform make incredible sacrifices to protect our freedoms, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has a responsibility to provide proper care for them when their service is complete,” said Rounds. “This includes offering quality, accessible mental health care to returning veterans, many of whom struggle with the invisible wounds of war long after they leave the battlefield. Our bill is a positive step toward offering them necessary assistance while streamlining programs to make sure our resources are being used effectively. I am pleased the full Senate understands the importance of taking care of our vets.”

Statistics show that an average of 22 veterans take their own lives every day in the United States. The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act calls for outside evaluations of all the current suicide prevention programs at the VA and the Department of Defense to make sure they are functioning as intended. Those found ineffective will come under review for improvement, consolidation or elimination.

It also would require a new website to be built that offers veterans information on how to access mental health services. Additionally, it creates a medical school loan repayment program to recruit more VA psychiatrists.

The bill was named for Clay Hunt, a Marine veteran who committed suicide in March 2011 at the age of 28. An identical bill passed the House of Representatives 403-0 on Jan. 12, 2015.

###

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Joins South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri Traditional Marriage Cases and Sets Expedited Argument

@SoDakCampaigns

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Joins South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri Traditional Marriage Cases and Sets Expedited Argument

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty J. Jackley announces that the Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has granted an expedited briefing schedule and set oral argument in the traditional marriage case for the week of May 11th through the 15th in Omaha, Nebraska. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has also joined the arguments for South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Order with the anticipation that the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals case upholding the State’s right to define traditional marriage in April, with a final ruling further anticipated in late June.

“It remains the State’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the citizens of South Dakota and not the federal courts. It will be my intent to work with the Attorneys General of Missouri and Arkansas in defending our respective State Constitutions and statutes. A decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals may serve as non-binding precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court and will otherwise establish the federal law for this Circuit in matters not addressed by the United States Supreme Court,” said Marty Jackley.

After Pressure from Noem, USDA Withdraws Portion of WOTUS Rule

@SoDakCampaigns

After Pressure from Noem, USDA Withdraws Portion of WOTUS Rule

Noem urges EPA and Army Corps to ditch the remainder of the rule

Washington, D.C. – Following pressure from Rep. Kristi Noem and others, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) withdrew the “waters of the U.S.” interpretive rule, a portion of the controversial expansion of navigable waters.

“The proposed expansion could be one of the largest federal land grabs in U.S. history,” said Noem. “I was thrilled to see that the USDA withdrew a portion of this proposal, as it unnecessarily introduced a high level of uncertainty. But we aren’t out of the woods yet. I will continue putting pressure on the EPA and the Army Corps to fully ditch the rule and move towards a policy that is workable for South Dakota farmers and ranchers.”

Last year, Rep. Noem helped lead the U.S. House of Representatives in passing bipartisan legislation to prohibit the EPA and the Army Corps from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering or enforcing the proposed rule to or any similar rule that would expand the agencies’ jurisdiction over these waters. She also called on the EPA to define regulated navigable waters on a map after an alarming graphic was released that has raised questions about how extensive the EPA’s regulatory authority could become. Read more and view the graphic here.

In May 2014, Rep. Noem joined 231 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle on a letter urging the EPA and the Secretary of the Army to withdraw the proposed rule. She also questioned the USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at an Agriculture Committee hearing in June. Here, the Congresswoman raised concerns about the lack of clarity the interpretive rule would provide to producers and questioned why the administration is pursuing the rule when so many are opposed to it (watch the exchange here).

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Repeal Act

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Repeal Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today signed on to cosponsor legislation that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The bill has 44 cosponsors.

“Obamacare isn’t working for American families, plain and simple. Now it’s our job in Congress to clean up the President’s mess,” said Rounds. “Premiums have skyrocketed for many and millions have lost their preferred doctor or insurance plan, despite promises to the contrary. Ideally, we will replace Obamacare with a market-based, patient-centered plan. Repealing and replacing Obamacare needs to remain a priority.”

The Obamacare Repeal Act fully repeals Obamacare effective 180 days after its enactment, and provides Congress and the states the intervening six months to develop and vote on patient-oriented health care reform that will incrementally unravel Obamacare’s structural damage to our health care system and economy.

Congress must demonstrate its commitment to reducing healthcare costs and empowering American families with better innovations that save and improve lives.

###

Thune Statement on President Obama’s Budget

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Statement on President Obama’s Budget

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) made the following comment on the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposal:

“While the president continues to cling to the same old failed top-down economic policies of spending increases and tax hikes, Republicans are focused on the future. Our budget will focus on growing the economy from the ground-up. Unlike the president’s budget, ours will balance and will reduce runaway spending and waste to make a more efficient, effective, and accountable federal government.”

###

Noem Statement on President’s FY2016 Budget

@SoDakCampaigns

Noem Statement on President’s FY2016 Budget

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today responded to the President’s release of his FY2016 budget proposal. Noem will be questioning the administration on the proposal Tuesday morning during a Ways and Means Committee hearing.

“Our country faces tremendous challenges and they require real solutions, not political rhetoric,” said Noem. “The President’s tax-and-spend budget proposal is nothing more than politics, which is extremely disappointing. South Dakotans deserve a genuine proposal that will fundamentally rebuild our economy from the bottom up, ensuring hardworking folks have the opportunities they need to achieve the American Dream.”

###

Where should the line be drawn in determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot?

@SoDakCampaigns

There’s been a bit of fuss on line over Senate Bill 166 which, in case you’re wondering, intends to alter the determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot. The language of the measure notes:

SENATE BILL NO. 166
Introduced by: Senators Brown, Lederman, and Novstrup (David) and Representatives Stalzer, Bolin, Gosch, Haggar (Don), Rounds, Solum, Westra, and Wink

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the method used to calculate the petition signatures to place initiated measures on the ballot and to declare an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 2-1-5 be repealed.
2-1-5. The total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, shall for the purposes of this chapter, be the basis for determining the number of petitioners required.
Section 2. That chapter 2-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
For purposes of this chapter, qualified electors shall mean the total registered voters eligible to cast a ballot for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election as determined by the secretary of state.
Section 3. Whereas, this Act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

Follow SB 166 here.

What the measure states is that the number of petition signatures required for placing a measure on the ballot is not based on the “total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election,” but “the total registered voters eligible to cast a ballot for Governor.”  There have been some fussing on-line over the move to revise the definition. Some are calling it an attack on the power to petition, and noting that all the legislators proposing it hate cats and woodland creatures, etc and so on.

But playing devil’s advocate there are a couple of things worth pointing out.  Because much of the criticism ignores it.

For the first part of it, I go to the state constitution:

§ 1. Legislative power–Initiative and referendum. The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a Legislature which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions. Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.

This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure. The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the people. This section shall apply to municipalities. The enacting clause of all laws approved by vote of the electors of the state shall be: “Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota.” The Legislature shall make suitable provisions for carrying into effect the provisions of this section.

Read that here.

It would appear that the corresponding provision in the state constitution requires that no more than 5% of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.

Just like the measure being proposed.

A little history on the constitutional provision – this portion of the State Constitution was solely amended in 1988, despite multiple attempts previously to do so. What changed? A former requirement which mandated the legislature formally ratify an initiative to appear on the ballot was removed:
constitutional-amendment-a
Aside from that sole amendment, the constitutional provision has remained unchanged since 1898. In comparison, the SDCL 2-1-5 has been in it’s current form only since 1976. (I’m going to have to do a little more digging when I’m in Pierre on Tuesday or Wednesday for the specifics on that change in the law.)

But, when you dig into it, 2-1-5 is almost a little out of place.

As opposed to being something arbitrary that legislators are coming up with off of the top of their heads, the change that’s being proposed in Senate Bill 166 is to make the definition in statute mirror the definition in the state constitution.

But it’s not just the constitution. Other portions of state law also note the larger requirement. Take SDCL 2-1-1:

2-1-1.   Initiative petitions–Number of signatures required. All measures proposed by initiative shall be presented by petition. The petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state.

Read it here. What? It says right there that “The petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state.” But that’s not the requirement. And the confusion doesn’t get any better.

SDCL 2-1-3 notes:

2-1-3.   Referendum–Laws subject to petition–Form. Any law which the Legislature may have enacted, except one which may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, shall, upon the filing of a petition as hereinafter provided, be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state at the next general election. Such petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state. The form of the petition shall be prescribed by the State Board of Elections.

Read that here.   And only then we get to SDCL 2-1-5:

2-1-5.   Total vote used to determine number of signers required in petitions. The total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, shall for the purposes of this chapter, be the basis for determining the number of petitioners required.

Read that here.

I sense an issue of inconsistency here, muddied with contradictory laws. Both the initiated measure law, and the referendum law are consistent with the constitutional definition. And then we have SDCL 2-1-5 tossed in to revise those laws, despite the fact they’re still in force.

Are you thoroughly confused yet in trying to figure out how 2-1-1 & 2-1-3, play against 2-1-5 in the big scheme of things?  I doubt you’re alone.   Yes, changing SDCL 2-1-5 will raise the number of signatures some. But it will also make it consistent with two other laws governing the same thing, as well as the state constitution.

I guess it all depends where you think the line be drawn in determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot.   Historically, for every good measure on the ballot, we’ve had more than our share of nutty Informed Jury, Jail for Judges, and Open and Clean Government initiatives paid for and ran by out of state organizations using South Dakota as the beachhead for launching privately funded assaults on laws nationwide.

But what do you think? Is this a hurdle too far, or is it time to remove the misplaced law, and place the requirements for initiated measures back to what our constitutional framers intended?

So, how did all those Libertarians do in campaign finance?

@SoDakCampaigns

With end of year campaign finance reports due, I thought it would be interesting to look back and see how those plucky upstarts over at the Libertarian Party did in raising money to run for office, since they fielded more Candidates than the state Democrat Party did.

Did I say plucky? I think I might have meant yucky.  An examination of the reports shows that there literally was no money raised or spent universally across all of their candidates. The one who raised the most, John English, who ran for office of School and Lands Commissioner, was said to have dropped out before election day.

Having filed his termination report in October might also be an indicator.

Here’s what I found among the candidates. There is still a possibility that a report may yet come in, especially from Chad Haber, who has never filed a report of expenditures. But I think you get the hint of how they all did if you review the reports. Links are to the reports I reviewed:

What do you think? All show, and no go, or was that the start of a grand experiment for the Libertarians?