Author: @SoDakCampaigns

So, what happened to paying your debt to society? Republican State Senator Craig Tieszen want to give voting rights back to felons as soon as they’re out of prison.

According to KOTA news:

District 34 Senator Craig Tieszen will introduce a bill this legislative session to restore voting rights to felons as soon as they get out of prison.

State law dictates that felons have to wait until their parole is finished.

But keeping in line with the state’s mission to reform criminal justice, Tieszen said Friday that it is only fair that felons get the chance to take part in the voting process.

Read it here.

Sorry, but that’s just a bad move, and no reason to be soft on criminals. What’s next? A polling place at the state pen? The fact of the matter is that in 2012, South Dakota finally fixed what was a confusing patchwork system and clarified that:

Under South Dakota Codified Law § 12-4-18, a person convicted of a felony in either federal or state court on or after July 1, 2012 loses the right to vote. A person so disqualified becomes eligible to register to vote upon completion of his or her entire sentence. A person who receives a suspended imposition of sentence does not lose the right to vote.

Read that here.. If you look at that page, it details the mess we had before.

And, the truth is that there’s a lot more to sentences than jail time. There’s restitution, there’s treatment, and a host of other remedies and hoops the court may require before the felon has completed their sentence and has their full citizenship restored.

Why would we give someone less incentive to fulfill their obligations? Because while some think it might be fair for the felon, what about fairness for the victim? Shouldn’t, say an embezzler, meet the sentence requirement of restitution before having their right restored?

It’s even a worse idea this year. Why? Two words – Annette Bosworth.

Say this law passes. If Annette is convicted (or pleads guilty) to election violations, for a white collar petition felony charge, she likely would not spend one hour in prison. Which, under the Tieszen proposal, means her right to vote would suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Why would we want to do that for election violators? Shouldn’t there be some effect on a right to vote in that situation?

There are a lot of reasons to reject this. Most importantly, I keep coming back to the fact we just fixed this law in 2012. So why would we step backwards and make it a confusing mess again?

That’s just a bad idea.

According to education groups pushing a sales tax increase for teacher salaries, the measure likely faces both legislative resistance, and a likely Veto from the Governor.

According to the Argus Leader this morning:

Under the terms of the proposal, state sales tax would increase by a penny in June, July and August. Money from the tax hike would go into a special fund reserved for school districts.

The one-cent sales tax hike would bring in about $40 million, according to estimates. But even the people who came up with the idea are less than certain about how much support there is among lawmakers. Rob Monson, executive director of the School Administrators of South Dakota, said the plan would probably do better among voters.

His group was one of three that pitched the idea to a committee of lawmakers in September. Monson is more optimistic about the proposal’s fate as a ballot initiative than he is about it passing through the Legislature with the required two-thirds approval.

“I just find it hard to believe that we would get that kind of support,” Monson said.

Read it here.

What do you think? Should the legislature be setting local salary policy?

And is this going to be what Democrats spend their time, money, and energy on in 2016 instead of running candidates for office?

For the first time, the South Dakota U.S. Attorney’s office has interjected itself into the disputes counties are having with the Native American community over satellite voting centers; where groups are asking for centers to be set up so they don’t have to travel to the county seat to vote early as in every other other county;

After the election, the county filed a motion asking Judge Karen Schreier to toss the case, but the Department of Justice has asked her not to.

U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson says the county’s refusal to open a satellite office – the cost for which can be reimbursed through Help America Vote Act funds – was not a reasonable response, given the state’s history with the Native American community.

“Let’s be clear, South Dakota does not have a proud history when it comes to providing Native Americans an equal right to vote,” Johnson said. “We should be doing more, not less, to protect the right of every South Dakotan to vote in our elections.”

And..

In addition to the three methods of absentee voting available in South Dakota, each Plaintiff can also vote on Election Day at their local precinct polling place, which includes a polling place at the precise location Plaintiffs are suing for an absentee voting site – Wanblee,” the lawyers wrote.

The lawsuit should be dismissed, the lawyers wrote, because it contains no proof that the decision not to open an early voting center disenfranchised Native Americans, a protected class under the Voting Rights Act.

Read it all here.

(And before it’s mentioned, yes I know it’s technically not early voting but in-person absentee. I’m just using the slang.)

US Attorney Brendan Johnson had remained silent in other cases that had come up, so it’s unclear what triggered this action by his office. Unless he’s going to run for something himself in 2016.

Early Satellite voting centers remain controversial, as most counties don’t do them. They’re more of a hands-on walk through of the absentee voting process using paid staff. They don’t necessarily use county employees, but they can. Either way, those wanting them typically sue because they want federal HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funds to pay for them.

As noted by the 2012 article linked above, centers aren’t usually buzzing hubs of activity:

Gant and Ganje arranged for a primary election voting center in Pine Ridge Village staffed by two Fall River County employees who drove 64 miles each way each day. Turnout was low, with only 46 voters showing up over the 31 actual days of voting.

Two questions – Should counties with a significant Native American presence get extra assistance with voting that isn’t provided in other counties?

And does U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson’s weighing in on the issue signal that he’s gearing up for something more political in the near future?