Category: 2016 Elections

(I think the NRSC has an opinion on this. What do you think? -editor pp)

NRSC To Brendan Johnson: Stop Cashing in on Tribal Rolodex

Republicans Call on Former U.S. Attorney to Take Tribal Clients for Free

WASHINGTON – In light of recent reports revealing that Former U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson on the search for new tribal clients for his law firm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is calling on Johnson to only take South Dakota tribal clients on a pro bono basis as he transitions through the revolving door from the public to the private sector.

It has recently been reported that the former U.S. Attorneys for the districts of North Dakota and South Dakota, who both recently resigned from their federal government posts to join the national law firm Robins Kaplan LLP, will lead a tribally focused group for their new firm. This pass through the revolving door is likely to raise flags as these lawyers start calling on all their tribal contacts developed while on the government payroll to see about getting new business for their new national law firm.

“It’s no secret that Brendan used his dad to initially get the U.S. Attorney job and now it looks like he’s using his U.S. Attorney Rolodex to land tribal clients,” said NRSC spokesman Matt Connelly. “This sort of practice might be standard operating procedure at Brendan’s national law firm, but it’s not going to pass the smell test in South Dakota. If Brendan brings any new tribal clients to his law firm, he should do it on a pro bono basis.”

South Dakota Public Radio recently revealed that Johnson has been making trips out to meet with Lower Brule Sioux tribal leaders. Johnson denied any attempts to gain new clients for his firm but tribal leaders weren’t so sure about the purpose of the trips.

“South Dakota taxpayers would feel much better if they knew that in the weeks after Brendan Johnson left the federal government’s payroll he was meeting with tribal officials in efforts to gain new pro bono clients, not pad the pockets of his new national law firm,” said Connelly.

“Just as federal lawmakers must take part in a ‘cooling-off period’ before lobbying, so should our U.S. Attorneys before they start cashing in on the connections they made,” concluded Connelly.

Is abortion going to be a defining issue in the next US House Race?

Anticipated to be announcing a run against South Dakota’s Congresswoman Kristi Noem, Democratic State Rep Paula Hawks was specifically held out in September 2014 as one of NARAL’s favorite pro-choice candidates:

Compare that to Congresswoman Kristi Noem, who has advocated for the pain-capable unborn child act:

…and voted for it yesterday.

First a major difference on a state income tax, now the abortion issue. This could shape up to be a  classic conservative Republican versus an extremist liberal Democrat race when Hawks announces, as is anticipated in June or July.

Imagine if you were serving overseas in the United States Military, with your family stationed alongside with you. Or worse, you were by yourself serving in hostile territory. If you were serving your nation, you would think that the last thing that someone would do would be to make it harder for you to cast a ballot during your time away from home.

Especially if you knew that during one of the last elections, 40% of uncounted ballots were due to votes that were not received in time to be counted for the election.

In fact, you would think that if politicians should do anything, aside from removing you from conflict, they should make sure your vote counts when your life is on the line, or at the least, you’re serving in a foreign land.

In South Dakota, legislators did just that this year. But, it’s run into a snag.

Among many things, Senate Bill 69 which was passed by both houses of the legislature, and was signed by the Governor, moved the date for petitions to be circulated backwards by a month into December of 2015, and moving the petition deadline to the first Tuesday in March.  You might bemoan political campaigns starting a month earlier, but there’s a critically important reason to do so. Because there’s more time provided to facilitate the broad deadlines for military voting.

As I’d written back in January of this year:

This has been a move long in coming, given the tremendously tight deadlines largely driven by federal requirements of when to have ballots completed in time for military voting. According to the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) act, the MOVE Act requires States to send absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days before Federal elections.

So, those ballots have to be set in stone 45 days out under federal law.

Current law didn’t really allow for any significant time for challenges or fighting over ballot qualification. Those ballots were literally required to go to the printer within a couple of weeks of being filed. The proposed changes in law would give significantly more time to allow for challenges, but the cost is pushing the active campaign 2016 season back into 2015.

Read it here.

The bill was amended since I wrote that (it was originally back a week into February from the first Tuesday in March), but the same holds true – to meet federal guidelines on providing ballots to military voters as well as their overseas dependents, there simply needs to be more time.

Under Secretary of State Jason Gant, there were significant improvements to South Dakota’s system for military voters, as reflected in this article from Government Security News Magazine:

South Dakota Secretary of State Jason Gant has activated the new iOASIS system, a computerized absentee ballot system for members of the military. The iOASIS system will be available to military members serving overseas for the upcoming South Dakota elections in April 2014.

and…

The iOASIS system was developed and tested more than 1,000 times by the South Dakota National Guard as well as a number of overseas military bases. Intended as way to streamline absentee voting for military members serving overseas, it utilizes technology from the DoD such as the Common Access Card (CAC).

“iOASIS is based on a concept of simplicity,” said Gant. These voters will now be able to register to vote, request an absentee ballot, receive an absentee ballot and mark an absentee ballot in seconds. The ballot is then printed and returned for counting.

and..

Gant has presented the iOASIS system to the U.S. Congress as a potential solution for the American absentee-ballot system.

Read it all here.

Gant’s IOASIS system was revolutionary, and greatly alleviated the step of having to send ballots out through the mail, but because of law the ballots are still required to be sent back via mail:

Military voters will now be able to register to vote, request an absentee ballot, receive an absentee ballot and mark an absentee ballot in seconds. The ballot is then printed and returned for counting.

Read that here.

While the IOasis system arguably shaves off half of the up to 60 day timeframe, under current law if ballots are not provided until the minimum required 45 days before the election, that provides a window of roughly about two weeks, and after that, you’re at the mercy of your job, military mail and the US Postal Service.

The timeframe between ballots being provided for absentee use has continually run down to the wire because of petition certifications, challenges to petitions, as well as the amount of time to print ballots. In moving deadlines back by about a month, Senate Bill 69 would have relaxed the pressure, and provided more time for both challenges, as well as completing the ballots.

The referral of Senate Bill 69 which is currently underway by the State Democratic Party and it’s sycophants comes as a result of partisan, political objections over a measure that Democrats had attempted to amend several times during the process.

The biggest problem? In their rush to judgement and to put the measure to a political campaign where they can spin it – it hits the pause button on the reforms, and means that they won’t take place in 2016 as intended by the legislature.

Much of the hullabaloo over the bill came because it limited the ability of state Democrats to place candidates on the ballot who had no intention of running – what were termed ‘placeholder candidates’ which gave them further time to try to find someone better.

Twice; once in the Senate, and once in the House, they proposed failed amendments to allow ‘party bosses’ to fill empty slots that no one in their party had petitioned for, a move which for the most cynical illustrated their breakdown as an organization able to run candidates for office. Other objections have been raised with regard to standardizing petition signatory counts and deadlines between party organizations and candidates.

Currently, Democrats are out in South Dakota seeking signatures to refer Senate Bill 69 to a vote of the people. While they squawk about it allegedly “punishing independents” or “making it tougher for Democrats to put people on the ballot,” what they aren’t telling voters is that a referral of SB 69 will nullify the reforms passed by this years’ legislature to provide more time for military and many overseas voters to return a ballot to South Dakota in time for the election. What they aren’t telling you is that referring SB 69 will keep us stranded in a flawed system with near impossible deadlines to provide ballots to the military for yet another election.

What they aren’t telling you is that every signature they collect on the Senate Bill 69 referral petition is a signature against more time for military voters to cast a ballot.

And that’s a good reason by itself to just say no to the referral of SB 69.

Wasn’t there supposed to be a big announcement from Paula Hawks that didn’t happen a few weeks back?  Today, State Representative Paula Hawks is admitting to the Associated Press that yes, she’s looking at taking on Congresswoman Kristi Noem:

State Rep. Paula Hawks appears to be the first Democrat publicly weighing a challenge to Republican U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, who will be seeking re-election in 2016.

Hawks, a representative from Hartford, said Tuesday she will likely make a decision before July.

and…

Noem had more than $1 million in the bank when she wrapped up the fundraising quarter that ended in March.

Read it all here.

The biggest problem Hawks faces in a run against Noem? Before she can think about raising money against Noem’s $1 Million in the bank, she’s got to try to explain away her dismal record on the State income tax (View this video starting about 17-18 minutes in):

Questioner: are you in favor of an income tax?  Hawks: “Um, yeah. If done properly… I think an income tax is fairly based.”

Questioner: Do you see a downside to an income tax? Hawks: “It’s extremely unpopular. The unfortunate part of that is it’s unpopular because of a lack of understanding how that would affect people differently than taxes now.”

View and read for yourself here at ArgusLeader.com.

Hmm… Kristi Noem who is on the Ways and Means Committee fighting to reduce taxes? Or Paula Hawks who thinks we need new taxes at the state level and people don’t want new income taxes because they somehow don’t understand they need to pay more to government?  Is Hawks running for Congress because she thinks there are more tax-and-spend Democrats in Washington than there are in Pierre?

If Paula Hawks is for a state income tax in South Dakota, what will she do to our taxes at the federal level?

That’s the biggest question that voters should keep in mind.