Category: Uncategorized

Is this the face of an accidental legislator?

In 2014, Democrat Candidate Steve Stenson ran for the State Legislature as the odd Democrat out in a three way contest for State Representative. And the proceeded to get his tail kicked pretty hard, receiving nearly 2000 votes fewer than the next close competitor, Jeff Partridge. The vote in the contest was Dan Dryden – 5233, Jeff Partridge – 4533, and Steve Stenson – 2735.

Fast forward an election, and with the unfortunate passing of popular State Representative Dan Dryden, Stenson has suddenly been advanced from little more than a placeholder into a competitive race.

This kind of campaign situation is rare, but it does happen. A number of years back, I can recall that a State Democrat who was not anticipated to win anyway passed away in the midst of a State Legislative race, far too too late for Democrats to replace him.  Except this time, this is a far, far different situation.  Dryden ran extremely strong in his district, and would have been a shoe in. Yet, passing away after the deadline to replace him on the ballot has taken the candidates in this district, and jumbled the entire race around.

We now have a contest between Stenson, & Senator Craig Tieszen, but Dryden will remain on the ballot as a candidate, and is able to be elected to the office. Stenson’s job is now not just to raise his name ID, but to convince people he would be a better representative than a well known candidate who just happened to pass away, without being crass about it.

Representative Dryden’s passing just moved this race from the solid Republican column into a toss up race, where we can expect the Democrat party to spend significant resources. It literally may become their #1 targeted house race in the state, and represents a rare opportunity for them to gain ground in Rapid City.  And they won’t spare any expense.

In the case that Dryden wins election over Stenson, given the fact that the seat is in effect vacant by his passing, Governor Dennis Daugaard would appoint a replacement to serve in the office. As a result, Republicans have a vested interest in the seat remaining Republican, and will likely take over efforts for the Dryden campaign.

Stenson’s goal in the race has now shifted from a Sisyphean battle to convince people he was worth considering in the contest against his opponents to now trying to convince people he’s better than “any” Republican whom the Governor may appoint.  Could it give Stenson the opportunity to go to Pierre as the accidental legislator?

Maybe. But that still doesn’t prevent him from having to earn it.

State Rep. Dan Dryden Dies; Gov. Daugaard Requests Flags At Half-Staff

PIERRE, S.D. – State Rep. Dan Dryden of Rapid City passed away this morning. Dryden had represented District 34 in the State House of Representatives since 2011 and was the vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

“South Dakota has lost a true public servant. Dan Dryden was respected in the Legislature for his steady, common-sense approach,” said Gov. Dennis Daugaard. “He was committed to sound financial management, and was an expert in school finance. Like many others, I admired Dan’s dedication to serving our state, even as he quietly fought his battle with cancer. Linda and I offer our condolences to Judy, the Dryden family and Dan’s many friends at this difficult time.”

Gov. Daugaard will order flags to fly at half-staff statewide in honor of Rep. Dryden on the day of his funeral, which has yet to be determined.

-30-

I’m sure there will be official notification from the Governor’s office, but I’m hearing late this morning that State Representative and District 34 House Candidate Dan Dryden has passed away.

As a current candidate, yes, there are ballot implications, and I’ll write about those later.  But for now, we can honor and remember him for his service to our state.

A truly good man. Godspeed.

Here’s something you don’t hear every day.

In the District 14 House GOP primary this year, Republican and retired Citibank executive Dave Zimbeck challenged incumbent House members Larry Zikmund and Tom Holmes for one of the two house seats in the District.

He came in third in the contest, 668 votes to Tom Holmes 858 and Larry Zikmund’s 1,046.  Certainly nothing to be ashamed of, especially in the face of 2 incumbents. And that might be the end of the story, except for what’s happening at the moment.

The word is that in recent days donors to the campaign are opening letters from Zimbeck. He expresses a little melancholy about his performance in the race, wishing he could have done better, and noting to supporters that they should not have to bear the cost of his loss.

And as a consequence, he’s giving it all back. The money he’s received in donations.

Really.

I spoke with one person today who had given him a personal donation, as well as being involved with another political organization that gave him a check  They were both refunded in full, with similar letters.   It’s not every day you hear about something like that, where a politician doesn’t manage to win the election, but repays the people who invested in him.

Dave Zimbeck might have lost the election. But as you sit and think, you can’t help but wonder if he’s managed to find a way to win the war.

Defeat 22 Coalition Welcomes Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce

Largest city chamber in state opposes forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns

Sioux Falls – The Defeat 22 coalition welcomes the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce as the 15^th member of the coalition opposing taxpayer-funded political campaigns. The Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce joins the coalition after its leadership reviewed the issue and decided that forcing taxpayers to fund campaigns would not serve its members’ interests.

Defeat 22 spokesman Ben Lee provided the following statement:

“We are glad that Sioux Falls residents and business owners will have their local chamber joining the fight against forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns. The Defeat 22 coalition continues to grow as more and more South Dakotans realize that Measure 22 means giving our hard-earned tax dollars to politicians for their robocalls and postcards. We appreciate the Sioux Falls Chamber standing up for their members against taxpayer-funded elections and helping us urge the defeat of Measure 22.”

Defeat 22 is a coalition of more than a dozen South Dakota businesses, charities, and political organizations who agree that tax dollars shouldn’t fund political campaigns. They have released multiple radio ads and two mailers to supplement a grassroots door knocking effort. The coalition plans to continue heavy grassroots advocacy and paid media through November. All details about the coalition-led effort can be seen at www.defeat22.com. 

From Kiplinger Magazine, we’re not doing too bad in term of the amount we pay in taxes:

Read it all here at Kiplinger.

So when Jay Williams says we’re not taxed enough, and we have both Congressional Candidate Paula Hawks, and State Legislative Candidate Cory Heidelberger saying we need an income tax, they’re not looking at the big picture. In the face of our sparse population and agricultural based economy, it’s what balances us out, and makes us an attractive place to invest and retire. (We’re also #9 on their top ten states for retirees.)

A headline at the Rapid City Journal shows that one of the worst campaigns in State History can’t even get their attacks right, as the Hawks for House team screws it up again:

The last time South Dakota lacked representation on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee was 1978, not 1957 as claimed by some critics of U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D.

Paula Hawks, a Democrat who is running against Noem in the Nov. 8 election, stated that Noem’s departure from the Ag Committee last year left South Dakota without a seat on the committee for the first time since 1957.

and…

The Journal fact-checked the claim with the assistance of Eric Ostermeier, author of the Smart Politics website at the University of Minnesota, and found that it’s off by 21 years.

Go read it all here at the Rapid City Journal.

When I was down at USD many years ago working on a degree in Public Administration, I had an odd incident where at a tavern I was introduced to a law school classmate of a friend. This classmate was from the East Coast, and hadn’t met many people yet. In striking up a conversation, I asked him if he had chosen USD because of the outdoor opportunities, as deer season was almost starting.

His somewhat rude reply, in a thick Boston accent? “I think hunting is barbaaaric,” as he went on a bit. Thankfully, that momentary interlude was my only interaction with this person, and I understand why his circle of friends was quite small.

Although, fast forwarding a couple of decades, from the sounds of things, it appears “barbaric deer guy” would be in synch with the current faculty.

A note was sent out from USD today to a number of people, including alumni, about an article one of the newer Law Professors has written. Was this woman writing about a facet of law that South Dakotans might find interesting and informative?   Well…..  you could call it interesting and informative, if you think generating pickets and protests of the law school as interesting and informative.

Because she’s advocating for a worldwide ban on trophy hunting:

Message from Prof. Dellinger: 

Dear all,

I simply thought I would let you know that my article on “trophy hunting” – the hunting for “sport” of rare species – has now been published.  You can download it from here, should you like to see it: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822111 .  Feel free to share that link others.

 I advocate against continuing the practice of trophy hunting.  I address the issue from, mainly, a contracts point of view, arguing that the practice can modernly be held unenforceable under the common law for reasons of public policy (public opinion has, in recent years, turned against killing very rare animals).  I also argue that under the precautionary principle of law, to which the United States subscribes, the practice must be discontinued at least until there is more affirmative proof that the practice, as alleged, brings in valuable income to some regions.  The latter is highly questionable according to scientific studies.  I also briefly discuss the public trust doctrine and the state ownership of wildlife doctrine.

The article – with our name featured – is currently on SSRN’s list of top ten articles (by download) of the following journals: Animal Law eJournal, Regulation of Contracting Private Parties, WTO Law, Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal, North/South Relations, Politics of the WTO, and Political Economy – Development: Underdevelopment & Poverty.

Warm regards,

Myanna Dellinger
Associate Professor of Law
University of South Dakota School of Law

Oh my. In South Dakota that’s going to go over like a Baby Ruth bar in a swimming pool.

When parents are footing the bill for a very expensive education at USD, I don’t think that’s the product they were expecting to purchase. However, that’s the extreme liberalism that prospective law students will be facing in class.   And wait – it gets better when you look at the article:

Trophy Hunting Contracts: Unenforceable for Reasons of Public Policy

The “shadowy subculture” that trophy hunting has been said to be is one that attempts to make the unacceptable sound acceptable under the guise of euphemisms and questionable facts as will be demonstrated in this Article. While such discussions continue, more and more of the very last few specimens of several rare species are killed for, in effect, fun. As a society, we cannot allow trophy hunting of wild, rare animals to proceed given the uncertainty surrounding the effects of the practice and the reprehensibility of it to society. Contracts that are considered “unsavory,” “undesirable,” “at war with the interests of society,” or “in conflict with the morals of the time” may be declared unenforceable for reasons of public policy regardless of whether or not any underlying legislation provides that the contractual conduct is illegal.

and…

The public trust doctrine and the closely related doctrine of state ownership of wildlife impose a highly relevant duty on the government as the sovereign tasked with ensuring that wildlife is protected for the enjoyment of the present and future generations of all citizens, not just the select few. The doctrines could, as analyzed above, be used as mechanisms to ensure standing for plaintiffs seeking to challenge the validity of government regulations including the issuance of trophy hunting permits. Courts serve a valuable gatekeeper function in this respect. The above actions would not constitute undue judicial activism. Rather, they are examples of taking necessary action before it is too late where both the marketplace and the legislature have failed to meet the goals of society at large. The judiciary takes such necessary action in many other contexts, especially when there is a gap in the legal protections otherwise afforded to certain interests. This is the case with the last few remaining animals of many rare species. All action possible should be taken to protect these for future generations. That includes halting the unnecessary and injurious practice of trophy hunting.

In one of her many great works, late Professor and Vice-Chair of the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Svitlana Kravchenko wrote about the existence and enforcement of environmental human rights that “[t]he enforcement of ‘rights’ in the legal system does not, by itself, change government policy, but the embedding of rights in our thought systems can.” She 2016] Trophy Hunting Contracts continued to note that even more important than whether legal rights play a role in our minds is the issue of whether they play a role in our hearts. Said Kravchenko: “The reason that I focus on hearts is that changes there are more permanent; and where the heart goes, the head tends to follow.” In the case of trophy hunting of rare, wild animals, both people’s hearts and minds have changed. For that reason and for the legal reasons set forth in this Article, trophy hunting contracts should be declared unenforceable for reasons of public policy. The practice should be prohibited under positive law as well. (My emphasis  -PP)

Download the full article here.

So, we have a law school professor at USD who wants to ban trophy hunting, by invalidating contracts for it, as well as making it “prohibited under positive law as well.”  And apparently, it all exists in a “shadowy subculture?”  (Don’t tell South Dakota Taxidermists. They may have to move off of State main streets on to a side street.)

Seriously. A USD Law prof wants to ban hunting as against public policy, and calls it’s participants part of a “shadowy subculture?”

Has she ever actually talked to the people at the University she’s teaching at?  I don’t think she’s going to make any headway with her suggestion that trophy hunting be prohibited “under positive law as well.”  In fact, I think she may have earned herself a bit of scorn for being utterly out of touch with the part of the world she’s teaching in.

What are your thoughts?

I am shocked! Absolutely shocked!

Former Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner managed to get in trouble again for a sexting scandal. Again. And his wife Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin finally figured out that Weiner might have issues with his..   er….   He might have issues, and she has decided she will have no more:

Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin announced Monday she is separating from husband and former Congressman Anthony Weiner, after a new report that he had sent explicit photos to a woman multiple times over the last 19 months.

and…

A New York Post report published late Sunday claimed Weiner sent pictures to the unidentified woman, and described his sexual fantasies and masturbation in messages to her, calling her “literally a fantasy chick.”

One of the photos Weiner sent the woman showed his underwear-clad crotch as his son Jordan slept next to him in bed.

Read it here.

Since we won’t have “Carlos Danger” to kick around anymore, here’s a song to remember him by.

I was cleaning the junk and pile of papers off of my desk so I had space for my keyboard once again, and I came across something I picked up at the GOP State Convention a few months back. A booklet produced by the Stanley County GOP entitled “Who’s Who of South Dakota Republican Leaders for the Next Decade.”

If you aren’t familiar with it, it was a booklet put out in 2015 by the Stanley County GOP. At the time it came out last year, I did have a couple of people snarkily refer to it as “Tad Perry’s project to raise money for running for State Senate again.”  I hadn’t read it myself, so I couldn’t really comment, and besides, Jeff Monroe does a good job of trouncing all comers.

Anyway, they had a few copies out on a side table at the convention in Watertown, so I grabbed one.

On it’s back cover, the twenty page booklet bills itself by noting  “Who’s Who of South Dakota Republicans (sic) Leaders for the Next Decade is a source for identifying existing public officials and new individuals who are recognized as having the capacity to provide leadership at the state level for the decade ahead. These individuals have been nominated by others as that kind of leader. Included are those who currently hold leadership roles and are expected to continue their service into the next decade as well as individuals believed to have promise for public policy leadership.”

Who did they pick?

State Auditor Steve Barnett, School and Lands Commissioner Ryan Brunner, State Representative Justin Cronin, State Representative Mary Duvall, Pierre Mayor & State bureau chief Laurie Gill, GOP activist & former ED Jason Glodt, Attorney General Marty Jackley, Former State Rep. David Lust, Lt. Gov. Matt Michels, State Rep. Mark Mickelson, State Rep. Scott Munsterman, Perkins County States Attorney Shane Penfield, State Senator Deb Peters, Jason Ravnsborg, political scion & grandson of Clint Roberts, Hunter Roberts, US Senator John Thune, State Senator Larry Tidemann, and Chief of Staff Tony Venhuizen all found their way into the booklet.

Say what you will, you do have to admit that a few on the list are moving up in the world.

Justin Cronin is running for the State Senate.  Jason Glodt is currently running the Marsy’s Law campaign, and will be running Marty Jackley’s gubernatorial effort. Of course, Marty himself is in the hunt for the big chair of State Government, as is Mark Mickelson.

Deb Peters was just named President Elect of the National Council of State Legislatures. Jason Ravnsborg’s name comes up when the next Attorney General’s race is discussed, and has been an indefatigable supporter of the elephant.  John Thune is set to continue to be the SDGOP’s rockstar for years to come. And there are rumors afoot that Tony V. might be involved in one of the races for Governor in 2018.

Obviously, there’s a lot of people left off the list. And a couple I can’t help but wonder what “state leadership” roles they would provide, and how?  Readers, here’s your chance to edit the list. Who would you add to the list or who might you redact from the list and why?

The floor is yours.