Category: Uncategorized

In case you might be fooled into thinking Amendment V is a nonpartisan effort, here’s liberal democrat Tom Daschle encouraging you to vote for it.

Initiated Measure 22, Rick Weiland’s Politician Welfare act, helping to support those poor politicians by providing them taxpayer funded campaigns is not just a proposal in South Dakota. They have managed to pass taxpayer funded political campaigns in other areas.

So, what exactly would IM 22 bring South Dakotans political parties. But not the GOP/DEM type. The type with party beads, candy, and more. From the Maine Press-Herald:

“These may be legitimate campaign expenses, but it really doesn’t seem to be the best prioritization of taxpayer money to buy things like robocalls and junk mail,” Brakey said. He said that compared with traditionally financed candidates who collect most of their money from individual donors, those taking state funds for their campaigns can easily forget who is actually footing the bill.

and…

Dunlap, a traditionally financed candidate, is running against Saviello again. She has raised just $750, with $700 of that coming from a donation she made to her own campaign. And according to Dunlap’s most recent campaign finance reports, she has spent just over $59 on supplies for a get-out-the-vote headquarters in Rangeley. That left her with $139 to spend as of Oct. 25.

Saviello, by contrast – and within the rules of the program – has collected $62,000 of public campaign cash, spending $43,083 on his campaign, including $213 for party beads to toss out during a parade and $88 for candy.

Saviello said Wednesday he follows the rules, and that he can’t take re-election for granted.

“The first time you make an assumption like that you’re dead in the water,” said Saviello, who is seeking a fourth term. He said he has always thrown out party beads during parades, and noted that other politicians give out little American flags that are often left behind on the ground after a parade. “And that doesn’t seem right to me, either,” he said.

Saviello also has used his public funds to equip a campaign office and staff it with volunteers, which he said he did to ensure he’s doing his homework and is prepared to counter any last-minute political maneuvers by his opponent or her supporters.

Read it all here.

So, if you want taxpayers to foot the bill for tools, Chinese takeout, and party beads, by all means, pass IM 22.

If you think candidates can pay for themselves, then you should probably VOTE NO on the Politician Welfare Measure, IM 22.

Tim Reed hit us with a postcard today touting an endorsement from both outgoing State Rep.Scott Munsterman, as as well as Governor Dennis Daugaard.

The postcards are coming fast and furious on the campaigns this week…  Here’s the latest from No on 22:

From KELOland comes the story on how the liberal out-of-state interests have done their darnedest to try to but the election on Amendment V – Putting nearly 1.3 MILLION into the ballot measure which would hide party affiliation on the ballot, and to eliminate independents from the fall election:

The campaign finance report — filed with the Secretary of State’s office for “Yes on V” — shows a massive amount of money coming from out of state, $1.3 million.

Those against the measure say that money is evidence that V is an out of state plan that’s wrong for South Dakota.

and…

According to finance reports, the Yes on V group — which supports those changes — has taken in a lot of out-of-state money. More than $1 million came from an organization called ‘Open Primaries.’

“This donor does not disclose their contributors. It’s a dark money organization and they want to come in and buy a policy that would keep you in the dark,” chairman of Vote No on V Will Mortenson said.

Read it all here.

And if you want to look at it yourself…

Vote Yes on V by Pat Powers on Scribd

On occasion, there are a few female politicians who have listed their occupations as housewife on their political resume.  But, this is the first time I’ve seen “House husband” or it’s equivalent “Stay-at-home dad” for a candidate who is seeking office.

Of course, as written in the Aberdeen American News this AM, it had to be Cory Heidelberger who is running for the District 3 State Senate seat.

You don’t hear a lot about non-traditional “stay-at-home dads” in South Dakota. I’m quite sure Cory is be the first one to run for the legislature. It isn’t without controversy, as there are some who recommend against stay-at-home dads, as noted in this recent article in Time Magazine:

Research suggests the penalty may even be greater for men who temporarily exit the workforce. One study found that dads who left work for even a short period of time to cater to domestic matters earned lower evaluations and more negative performance ratings at work than women who opted out.

Single-income families are also at a higher risk of financial collapse, as one might guess. Researchers at Hope College and Cornell University found that, “Not only are two wages often necessary to adequately provide for the needs of most families, dual-earner couples are less economically vulnerable than single-earner families, for whom a layoff can mean financial collapse.”

A single-income household can also result in more stress for her. As it stands, wives who earn more admit to feeling more pressure to “make it all work,” especially when it comes to the family’s finances.

Read it here.

But, if his wife can support their family on her pastor’s salary, I suppose that’s between husband and wife.

Politically, it brings up an interesting point, given that it will pit house husband Heidelberger up against a long-time Aberdeen businessman, Al Novstrup, who owned a computer business before he became owner of Thunder Road in Aberdeen and Sioux Falls.

Novstrup is employer who contributes to the tax base of two communities, and has experience meeting a budget, paying sales and other commercial taxes, hiring & firing employees, etc.

The question is, who’s skill set is going to be more appealing to the voters.

A big vote no for T, V, 22 & 23!

Marsy’s Law Launches New TV Ad Featuring Kelsey Grammer

(Pierre, SD)—Today Marsy’s Law for South Dakota (Amendment S) launched a new television ad featuring award winning actor Kelsey Grammer supporting Amendment S.  Grammer is a crime victim whose father was shot and killed in his home at the age of thirty-eight.  Six years later, Grammer’s sister was brutally raped and murdered when she was eighteen. 

When his father’s killer was released from prison, the family was never notified.  They found out through the National Inquirer.  The killer of Grammer’s sister, Karen, remains in prison and Grammer has fought his efforts for parole.

Unfortunately, families in South Dakota have similar stories where criminals have been released or given parole hearings without notification being given to the families of the victim.  As a result, families have been re-victimized.

Grammer is known for his two-decade portrayal of psychiatrist Dr. Frasier Crane on the NBC sitcoms Cheers and Frasier. He has won five Primetime Emmy Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, and one Tony Award.

View ad here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEpYLjTI7bQ

Marsy’s Law for South Dakota is a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights that is named after Marsalee “Marsy” Ann Nicholas. Marsy was a beautiful, vibrant college student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Only a week after Marsy was murdered, her mother Marcella and her brother Nick walked into a grocery store after visiting Marsy’s grave and were confronted by the accused murderer. They had no idea that he had been released on bail.

For more information, visit www.equalrightsforsouthdakota.com

###

I was interviewed on a radio station this morning with regards to Amendment T, as they were looking for the reasons why people should vote no on it. I got through maybe a third of my talk, so I thought posting some of the specific points against it  for readers might be a good place for those seeking good information on why you should reject Amendment T, which stands for Terrible.

Unaccountable.

Amendment T, the redistricting measure seeks to establish an unelected & unaccountable board to redraw the legislative district lines and take this power away from our elected Legislature.  In fact, if you think about it, instead of having Legislators, who are directly elected by the people, it would replace them by an unelected board, appointed by another unelected board.

Amendment T is the bureaucratization of democracy. and provides bureaucrats power over voters against which the voters have no recourse.

It’s a solution looking for a problem.

In 2011, with the input of Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leadership, and others, legislators redrew the lines and received Obama Justice Administration approval, despite previous lawsuits and redrawn lines after previous redistricting.

Now FIVE YEARS later the South Dakota Farmer’s Union has spent over $150,000.00 to establish this board which would redraw the lines in 2017 and again in 2021, thereby providing extra cost and confusion to voters. The proponents of this Amendment are seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist, by gerrymandering our legislature.

The Redistricting commission in 2011 improved the District maps by reducing the number of split counties and adhering to the principles of respecting county lines and urban integrity. This approach benefitted rural areas, towns, and urban centers.

Outside of partisans who have noted their unhappiness over the lines not being drawn in a way that specifically benefitted them, there has literally been no public derision of the way the latest legislative lines were drawn.

If they passed the muster of the Justice department for most liberal federal administration in my lifetime, the Obama Administration, I’m not sure why South Dakota Democrats have such a beef with it.

It takes an open process and closes it as it limits public input

Amendment T mandates 30 days public input for the redistricting committee…. the legislature’s redistricting committee in 2011 had SIX MONTHS of public input. Voters would have LESS say in redistricting  under Amendment T.

Portions of Amendment T are clearly Unconstitutional. 

Amendment T expressly notes that it does not allow ANY elected party or state officeholder to serve for 3 years prior to and 3 years after serving on the board. This renders it unconstitutional before the first letter is typed into law.

Remember South Dakota term limits? They don’t apply to federally elected candidates, because it’s unconstitutional. Amendment T has the same problem with its language when it bars anyone from running for office for three years after serving on the board.

In 2000 – The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a California residency rule for congressional candidates, deciding that a state cannot add requirements for federal office to those already set down in the U.S. Constitution. That portion of Amendment T would most certainly be struck down upon challenge, and other portions could potentially be challenged in other “right to run” lawsuits.  (States and local districts may set their own qualifications, but unless these are closely aligned with those in the Constitution governing candidacies for high national office, such laws would be ripe for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge.)

Proponents aren’t exactly being forthright.

The proponents make misleading statements that 3 of the last 4 redistricting committees have been sued; the one in 2011 was NOT sued and so there has not been a lawsuit since 2001. And just because someone sues does not mean they are right.

..

I haven’t really said much about this measure to this point, because ultimately, redistricting isn’t a big deal, and the calls of gerrymandering are literally, a load of horse manure. Why do I have that opinion? Because of our large geographic area and sparse populations, you really can’t draw these lines other ways, and ultimately, it’s not going to change elections in South Dakota.

That being said, it’s offensive to have an unelected board appoint another unelected board to draw the lines of elections in the state – it borders on parody. And it shows how poorly drafted this measure is. What’s to stop the legislature from completely rewriting the election board makeup in the first place?

I could go on, but you get the point.

Amendment T is a solution looking for a problem. One that does not exist in South Dakota.