Category: Uncategorized

Christmas At The Capitol
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

When she was in the third grade, Linda Krutzfeldt received a Colorado blue spruce seedling. It was 1986 and a South Dakota Department of Agriculture forester was giving an Arbor Day presentation at Linda’s school in Huron. To go along with his presentation, the forester brought little trees for the children.

Linda took her tree home and planted it outside of her bedroom window so she could look at it each day and watch it grow. She even put a chicken wire fence around the tree to protect it. She called it “the little tree that could.” Under Linda’s care, the tree grew to 40 feet tall.

Thirty years later, that tree will be enjoyed by all who visit the Capitol this holiday season. Linda’s Colorado blue spruce is the tallest tree of this year’s Christmas at the Capitol display.

This season marks the 36^th year of Christmas at the Capitol. The idea was spearheaded by Dottie Howe of Pierre in 1981. That first year there were 12 decorated trees. In 1988, Christmas at the Capitol organizers started inviting groups and organizations from throughout the state to send decorations for 30 Capitol trees. The popularity of the Christmas tree display kept growing and growing, and by 1997 groups were decorating 50 trees.

This year we have over 90 trees in our display. The largest tree donated by Linda and her family has been decorated by the Mt. Rushmore Society and the theme of the display is “A Monumental Christmas.”

Many volunteers have devoted precious hours to decorate the Capitol building for the holidays. As always, they have done an excellent job. 

I hope you will find time this holiday season to come to Pierre to see Linda’s tree and experience Christmas at the Capitol. The display is open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days each week through Monday, Dec. 26.

I hope to see you there!

-30-

I reached out to the legislators who are leading the effort to refer the awful initiated Measure 22 to the courts for a review, and Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd responded with the following statement:

I swore an oath to support, defend and protect the Constitutions of the state of South Dakota and the United States. I take that seriously.

Challenging IM 22 is one step in that process as it so blatantly disregards both documents. Its passage has created a constitutional crisis in our state that reaches from the Governor’s chair through every elected official in our state making de-facto criminals out of every elected office holder and giving only two choices; resign the office and abandon the voters or remain and commit a crime. Clear, direct and decisive action was needed without additional delay.

As South Dakota citizens become better acquainted with the multitude of problems created by this law that was forced into South Dakota by activists from out of state, I am confident that they will join us in the effort to correct the problems this initiated measure has created.

Thank you Senator Curd for your efforts against this measure where South Dakotans were victimized by a false advertising campaign

I’m sure this is going to be dissected over the coming weeks, but here’s the primary issues that the litigants have against Initiated Measure 22, according to South Dakota State Law, the State Constitution, and the United States Constitution.

And as you read the problems with Initiated Measure 22, the case they lay out is stronger than you might have thought previous to it being brought.  Here’s the highlights as taken directly from the lawsuit:

Count One- The Ethics Commission violates Article 2 and Article 4, Section 8 of the state constitutionn.

Section 32 of IM22 creates an independent Ethics Commission that is not part of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government nor is it allocated to, responsible to, attached to, or overseen by any existing department, agency, or constitutional officer of the State of South Dakota.

Count Two-The Ethics Commission violates the Governor’s executive appointment authority and the separation of powers.

Under Article 4, Section I of the South Dakota Constitution, the Governor is vested with the executive power of the State.   Section 24 of IM22 violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which provides that each department of state government should act independently of the others. Section 24 violates this doctrine because the Governor’s executive authority to make appointments to the Ethics Commission is limited and in effect negated.

Count Three–IM 22 unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the Ethics Commission.

The power given to the Ethics Commission in Section 40 of IM22 to “replace or modify” 21 sections of the law constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power in violation of Article 3, Section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution.

Count Four-the Ethics Commission cannot lawfully qualify candidates

Section 40(9) of IM22 gives the Ethics Commission the broad power to adopt rules under SDCL Ch. 1-26 to regulate the qualification and certification of candidates.   By giving the Ethics Commission the power to regulate the qualification of candidates for the Legislature and the offices of governor and lieutenant governor, Section 40(9) usurps the constitutional authority of the legislative and executive branches under Article 3, Section 9 and Article 4, Section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution, and thereby violates Article 2 of the Constitution.

Count Five-IM22 unconstitutionally appropriates from the general fund

The annual appropriation made by Section 68 was not made by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the Legislature, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Count Six-Section 31 impairs existing contracts

Under Section 31, Curd, Peters, and Soholt must give up either their employment or their elected office to comply with IM22, which substantially impairs their existing contractual relationships. The requirement that citizen legislators or their family members not accept compensation from their primary employer if the employer happens to employ a lobbyist is not reasonably related to the purpose of IM22 of preventing corruption.  IM22 therefore violates the Contracts Clause to the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) and the South Dakota Constitution (Article 6, Section 12).

Count Seven-Section 31 violates the right to free speech

Under Section 31, a lobbyist or employer who hires a lobbyist is limited to contributing $100 to many elected officials running for office, while anyone else is subject to much higher limits. Section 31 thereby restricts and reduces political speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 6, Section 5 of the South Dakota Constitution.

Count Eight-the Democracy Credit Program violates equal protection and rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 6, Sections 4 and 5 of the South Dakota Constitution.

IM22 does not appropriate enough money for every registered voter to be able to use $100 in democracy credits. In addition, the cap on the democracy credit fund allows only a small percentage of currently registered voters to obtain the face value of their democracy credits.   (Editor’s note – I’ve suspected there would be a problem with this all along!)

Count Nine–the disclosure requirements for independent expenditures violate the right to free speech

Based on the many and short deadlines for disclosure, the information that must be disclosed, and the low disclosure threshold, the disclosure requirements in IM22 are unduly burdensome and thereby violate the right to free speech protected by the United States and South Dakota Constitution because they will burden, chill, and reduce individuals’ and organizations’ ability to engage in political speech and activity and do not have a relevant correlation or substantial relation to a sufficiently important governmental interest

Count Ten-single subject rule

Article 3, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject. IM22 is unconstitutional because it addresses multiple distinct subjects including campaign contribution limits, lobbying restrictions, the democracy credit program, and the establishment of an independent ethics commission.

The lawsuit also asks for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Today, the below lawsuit was been filed in South Dakota Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Hughes County. This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Initiated Measure 22 on numerous grounds.

Initiated Measure 22 Lawsuit by Pat Powers on Scribd

Boom.

I’m hearing rumors from multiple sources on a lawsuit potentially being filed today against Initiated Measure 22 on the basis of an unconstitutional exercise of spending authority by the measure.

What I’m hearing is that around 20-25 legislators could be named as plaintiffs in this fight against funds being arbitrarily appropriated via a ballot measure.  The question is whether they’ll be throwing only that portion of the measure out, or the whole thing entirely.

Watch dakotawarcollege.com as this story develops.

Delegation Disappointed by Secretary McDonald’s
Decision to Decline Hot Springs VA Tour and Meeting

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) wrote to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert McDonald to express their disappointment and concern over McDonald’s decision to decline a December 2, 2016, tour and meeting at the Hot Springs VA. McDonald will instead travel to the facility on November 30, 2016, a day on which the VA knows Congress will be session, thus preventing Thune, Rounds, and Noem from joining him on that day. By declining the December 2 meeting, McDonald is not fulfilling his commitment to tour the facility with the delegation prior to making his decision on whether or not to shutter the Hot Springs VA. 

“Given the magnitude of the changes the VA’s proposed consolidation would have on veteran care, we request that you not hastily issue a final decision in the waning days of President Obama’s administration,” the delegation wrote. “The uncertainty and distrust this process has sown in the veteran community can only be remedied by thoughtful and studied action. Furthermore, we also maintain that any reconfiguration sought by the VA should be made within the construct of a national realignment strategy for the Veterans Health Administration, as prescribed by law.”

On November 10, 2016, the VA issued its final environmental impact statement on the Black Hills Health Care system, the last formal procedural step prior to McDonald having to make a final decision on the facility’s future. 

Full text of the letter is below, and a PDF of the letter that was sent to McDonald can be found here. 

The Honorable Robert McDonald
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20420

Dear Secretary McDonald: 

We write to express our extreme disappointment and concern that you are not fulfilling your commitment to join the South Dakota delegation in touring the Hot Springs hospital campus prior to making a final decision regarding the proposed consolidation of the Black Hills Health Care System.

In our discussions with you dating back to before your confirmation as the eighth Secretary of Veterans Affairs, we have made clear our expectation that our veterans be given fair and open consideration in this matter. However, in the nearly five years since the VA first made public its desire to consolidate the Black Hills Health Care System, the process has not been sufficiently transparent or responsive to criticisms from veteran stakeholders. Failure to hold a constructive discussion about the Hot Springs campus with the South Dakota congressional delegation and veteran stakeholders, to include addressing the continued discrepancies in the VA’s analysis, prior to issuing a final decision will all but confirm that a reduction in services at the Hot Springs VA has been a pre-determined outcome throughout this process. We are confident that the long-sought visit to the historic Hot Springs VA campus will be most productive if it includes meaningful engagement with the veteran community and the presence of the South Dakota delegation.  

Given the magnitude of the changes the VA’s proposed consolidation would have on veteran care, we request that you not hastily issue a final decision in the waning days of President Obama’s administration. The uncertainty and distrust this process has sown in the veteran community can only be remedied by thoughtful and studied action. Furthermore, we also maintain that any reconfiguration sought by the VA should be made within the construct of a national realignment strategy for the Veterans Health Administration, as prescribed by law. 

Thank you for your timely consideration of this urgent and important matter.

Sincerely,

###

This is golden. Apparently, a week or so after Republicans, Dems are finally shaking off the haze of their self-induced election malaise, and noticing that Initiated Measure 22 affected them as well.

As in “Oops. Maybe we shouldn’t have taken the blue pill.”

This would be damned hilarious, if it wasn’t part of a broader mess from a poorly written bill from out of state interests. Local Democrats just figured out that the goofy language of IM22 just cut them off from Political Action Committee Act Blue, which has funneled tens of thousands of dollars from across the country to South Dakota Democrats:

I raised $5,701.02 from 76 donors for my District 3 Senate campaign by using ActBlue to collect contributions online. That’s over a quarter of my campaign fund, with an average donation of about $75. Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, just made raising that amount from relatively small donors on ActBlue illegal in South Dakota.

ActBlue acts as a political action committee, collecting donations through its website, then bundling those contributions into weekly checks for candidates using the system. ActBlue collects a small processing fee on each transaction, which it deducts before sending the balance to the candidate. The Secretary of State’s office directs candidates to report the total they receive in checks from ActBlue as a PAC contribution.

and..

If the goal of the Anti-Corruption Act is transparency, then we should require candidates to report the individual donors using ActBlue as a service provider. Otherwise, the Anti-Corruption Act will severely curtail the ability of South Dakota candidates to use an online fundraising tool that helps them compete against candidates enjoying big-money donations from larger corporate PACs.

Read here.

Of course, the looney left wants to have their cake and eat it too, trying to refer to ActBlue as a mere fundraising tool like paypal or as noted “a service provider.”

BUZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer.

Unfortunately, Dems don’t get to have their cake and eat it too, because ActBlue is federally registered as a PAC, no matter how much the goofy flower children of the left want to characterize their money-collective as something other than what it is:

ActBlue is a United States political action committee established in June 2004 that enables anyone to raise money on the Internet for the Democratic Party candidates of their choice. It is independent of the Democratic Party itself and does not endorse individual candidates.

Read that here.   Or if Wikipedia isn’t a good enough source, try this, as noted by Opensecrets.org:

Launched in 2004, ActBlue bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action.” As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees.

and..

The group also maintains a 527 political organization registered with the Internal Revenue Service for non-federal political activities, and ActBlue has registered as a political committee in more than 20 states for its state-level activities. It does not lobby the federal government.

Read that here.

Or, don’t take my word for it. But you can go look at their latest FEC Report here.

Initiated Measure 22 is nothing but a big mess for anyone who participates in politics. And it’s time to send that unwanted out-of-state guest away.

In case you’re as curious as I was, here’s more information on the new ballot measure. It’s being sponsored by the Committee to Ensure Student Privacy, chaired by Jack Heyd of Box Elder, SD.

Ballot Measure 2018 – Same Sex Bathroom Initiated Meaasure by Pat Powers on Scribd

Heyd had recently sent a letter to the editor in the primary election:

And had some other issues he was in the paper for last year, declaring Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2015 but otherwise, he’s not well known statewide in political circles.  Although, you’ve got to start somewhere, and this may be his entrance into statewide politics.

Stay tuned for more on this ballot measure which is sure to stir controversy.

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Measure Regarding Same-Sex School Facilities 

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed initiated measure has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by   the sponsor of the measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures    on the petitions by November 2017, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2018 general election.

The measure is entitled “An initiated measure requiring students to use rooms  designated for the same biological sex, and requiring public schools to provide a reasonable accommodation for students whose gender identity is not the same as their biological sex.”

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed measure.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link.

Attorney Generals Statement for Initiated Measure – Same Sex School Facilities by Pat Powers on Scribd