Category: Uncategorized

Third Mickelson Speaker of the House for South Dakota pic.twitter.com/PIsX0YROVb

— Cynthia Mickelson (@cyn_mix) January 10, 2017

I had Governor Daugaard’s State of the State address running in the background while I was working yesterday, and while it’s not coming in a year where there are big projects to accomplish, he had a lot of good things to report, and spoke about what he wants to accomplish in the next year.

What did we hear from the Democrats in response? A lot of awful. I caught Governor Daugaard’s Democrat opponent in the last race, Susan Wismer, bumbling and stammering through her hack response. Which was very illustrative as to why Governor Daugaard beat her by one of the largest margins in state history.

And we also had the State Democrat office who had a release prepped to go, which was equally as bad. But don’t take my word for it on how awful it was, here’s what Greg Belfrage on KELO-M had to say on the topic yesterday:

A written release from the South Dakota Democratic Party says, “Unlike today’s lackluster, complacent, and unfocused State of the State Address, Democrats will lead in this year’s Legislative Session by pursuing a pro-economic growth legislative agenda that is focused on making South Dakota work for all South Dakotans and making state government work for all people, not just the powerful and well-connected.”

Unfortunately, the release doesn’t articulate any “pro-economic growth” ideas. It’s simply a list of all the state’s failures and shortcomings.

You’ve got to wonder when state Democrats are finally going to catch a clue that their  “South Dakota sucks” message just doesn’t resonate with voters.

Read it here.

There’s a reason Democrats continue to shed legislators and registered voters. And they’re doing a good job illustrating why they’ve become irrelevant in South Dakota.

From the Argus Leader:

About a dozen supporters of a voter-approved ethics law rallied in Pierre Tuesday to oppose its repeal.

And…

“We passed IM 22, we told the legislators what we wanted and now they’re turning around and saying that they’re going to take it away or that we didn’t know what we were voting for,” Doug Kronaizl, spokesman for Represent South Dakota, told the law’s backers. “It was pretty clear when we went to the polls what we wanted.”

Read that here.

Is it just me, or do IM22 zealots keep missing an important point in all of this?

Initiated Measure 22 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NO AMOUNT OF WHINING ABOUT IT OR IGNORING THE FACT IS GOING TO CHANGE IT! You were warned about it ahead of time, and a judge just underlined that fact.

Good gosh.

I was asked to make an appearance on the Greg Belfrage show at KELO-AM this morning, and had assembled some notes about what we can expect to come up for session. As is typical, you never have enough time, but my notes are a good rundown of what we might expect in part.

This will be a quiet session in terms of big items. No big asks as we had for teacher pay and roads, so no one anticipating new taxes. Senator Deb Peters called it a “Slow down year” noting revenue is slowing, so spending will as well.

IM22 will dominate talk early in session. Legislators will have to decide between 2 approaches

1. Pulling it apart, removing the objectionable portions, such as the taxpayer funded political campaigns. And,
2. Do nothing, and let the courts kill the entire thing.

I suspect the legislature will put an ethics panel in place, as there is a need for addressing some of the more technical violations, such as not having disclaimers on items, and the type of things that got Annette Bosworth and her husband in trouble.

Bathroom Bill/Trangender Bill -There’s a push on it now in response to last year’ veto, and the promised ballot measure. Not sure who is taking the lead on this, but there’s a question of whether there’s the legislative will to fight that battle. I’ve already heard that some conservative leaders may limit the bill to showers only.

Constitutional Carry Bill – The legal carrying of a handgun, both openly and concealed, without the requirement of a permit is going to possibly one of the sleeper bills that people aren’t paying attention to now, but it’s coming, and stands more than a good chance at passing. I believe Lance Russell will be leading this.

Drug Testing for TANF recipients – It was tried last year, but went down in committee 9-4. It’s a big government solution requiring more employees and more in taxpayer dollars for a problem we don’t have. Liz May is one of the sponsors on this, but, it’s not one that limited government Republicans can support. If someone is arrested for drugs, that’s what the courts are for. We don’t need to set up government bureaucrats to substitute their judgement for a judge’s.

Transfer of nursing home beds – Because nursing bed licenses are limited, allowing the transfer of bed licenses between facilities to better meet needs on a geographic basis is a pretty good idea. And it’s a good free market solution.  Watch for Wayne Steinhauer to be the lead on this.

Intellectual diversity bill – Jim Bolin is bringing back 2006 bill requiring regents to report what’ being done on campuses to promote intellectual diversity. Narrowly defeated back then, but with the climate on campuses with groups protesting and shutting   down conservative speakers, it’s a good time to revisit how we keep discussion open  in South Dakota.

Petition reform – Discussion on petition reform is likely. Too easy for out of state groups to buy their way on the ballot, and as we saw with initiated measure 22, flood the airwaves with propaganda which doesn’t tell the whole story, misleading voters as to what they are getting.  Several, including Don Haggar have expressed a willingness to try to fix this mess, so we’ll see who takes up the cause in the legislature.

I’m hearing Meth is going to play a part in the State of the State today, so watch for something addressing the increasing meth crimes across South Dakota.

And there will be more. Keep watching the SDWC….

The liberal Massachusetts group who worked with Slick Rick Weiland and spent millions to promote a measure they were warned was unconstitutional – which was struck down by the courts for that reason – is continuing to throw cash around.

Now, they’ve put out a video attacking State Senators Blake Curd and Deb Peters because Peters and Curd were part of the group that asked a court to look at the measure:

This is a really odd attack, as Peters is in her last term of office in the State Senate, as she’s termed out after this go around.  And Curd isn’t up for election for another year or so, and after a few terms, Democrats have yet to field a credible candidate against him.

This comes across as little more than a petty swipe at them by the liberal group “Represent US,” as they attempt to salvage their million dollar investment in South Dakota which went South fast as soon as it was tested by the courts.

I had mentioned earlier that I’d heard rumors that the out-of-state backers of Initiated Measure 22 were looking hard for a lobbyist to represent them in Pierre after they spent a million dollars convincing South Dakotans that evil lobbyists spent their time buying off crooked legislators with bottles of Dom Perignon….

“But I think the idea of being able to take someone out for a private dinner, unrestrictive, in terms of being able to order the best thing on the menu–bring on the Dom Perignon, bring on the scotch, whatever–you know when you don’t have restrictions, things can happen,” Weiland said.

Read that here.

….and gave state residents the impression that state lobbyists generally practiced graft and corruption.

It appears that the out-of-staters have hired the first of their lobbying team in the form of former Sioux Falls Legislator Mitch Richter, who is also representing Rick Weiland’s group that sponsored the unconstitutional measure, “South Dakotans for Integrity.”

Richter will be appearing before legislative committees and has the duty to convince legislators that everyone in Pierre is corrupt, and lobbyists hand money off to crooked legislators who are on the take as the groups’ commercials portrayed.

While the list above notes Richter’s 2017 client list as of this writing, in past sessions he has also represented the ACLU of South Dakota, the anti-farming group Humane Society of the US, pro-choice group South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, Union group South Dakota State Federation of Labor, and anti-gun group “Everytown for Gun Safety.”

Courtesy of South Dakota’s laws on initiated measure, first we had an announcement of someone’s intent to bring a measure allowing us to kill ourselves. Now comes a proposal to legalize pot for anyone who wants it, because the sponsors think South Dakota is “missing out.”

From the Rapid City Journal:

New Approach South Dakota will submit the proposal for an initiated measure to go to a statewide vote on the 2018 ballot. The group will submit the proposal to the attorney general’s office early next week, and it plans to begin gathering signatures after his explanation is released. A separate measure reviving the medical marijuana issue has also been submitted for the statewide ballot process.

The group says the tax revenues that could be generated if the measure passed would create millions for South Dakota’s education system and for general government spending.

From KCCR News, it looks like some people can’t wait to increase the authority State Government has over people’s lives.

South Dakota lawmakers start their legislative session Tuesday with many bills, with some that will cause a great deal of debate.

One of the more controversial bills being brought forward this session is a bill that would require random drug testing for TANF recipients. TANF, known as South Dakota Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, has provided cash welfare to poor families with children since the 1930’s.

Bill co-sponsor Liz May of Kyle says it’s the same bill that was killed in committee last year.

and…

The bill would require the Department of Social Services to randomly test two percent of the adult applicants for the cash benefits upon application for benefits.

Read it here.

Ugh. Really? That dog didn’t hunt in 2016, when a similar measure died 9-4 in committee a year ago, and with good reason.

It increases government. It adds bureaucracy. And it sets a dangerous precedent – if South Dakota State Government can conduct drug tests for one interaction with state government, why not others, such as drivers licenses, sales tax licenses, or to receive a notary public certification?

Some of us prefer to not give big government that much authority in our lives.  You think that sentiment would be shared among all of those going to Pierre calling themselves Republicans.

In my Sunday Argus this morning (which I get for the full week of online access, as well as the Sunday ad inserts, since the ads generally out number news) this full page advertisement appeared attacking newly elected Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd.

The ad appears to come from out-of-state group Represent.us, the same one who spent millions to promote the ultimately unconstitutional Initiated Measure 22.

If you recall, initiated measure 22 was submitted to the voters after sponsors were warned that portions may be unconstitutional in the initial drafting review stages done by the Legislative Research Council. Ignoring that, out of state sponsors spent well over $1 million on a campaign which ignored portions of the measure objectionable to the public, and focused on unfounded claims that lobbyist were buying off state officials.

The measure nearly passed, but was quickly challenged in court, and enjoined by South Dakota courts for – guess what? – being unconstitutional. Who would’ve imagined that, after they were warned about it the first place?

Legislators have promised to roll back the unconstitutional measure, but to retain some form of ethics commission, since that is what the voters thought they were getting in the first place.

But that’s not good enough for the sponsors of the unconstitutional measure. So, the out-of-state liberal group is once again opening up their pocketbook, and pressuring legislators to keep the portions that they just lost in court on.

I’m sure there will be more drama to come. 

COURT ORDERS BERGET’S COUNSEL TO SUBMIT COMPETENCY REPORT

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Circuit Court Judge Hoffman has ordered Berget’s counsel to submit a report addressing whether Berget is mentally disabled before further ruling on State’s Motion to Dismiss. In September 2016, Berget told the court he did not want to appeal his case any further. The State filed a motion to dismiss.

“It remains the State’s position that due process has been satisfied. Testing from throughout Berget’s life shows that he is a person of at least ordinary intelligence meeting both federal and state competency requirements. This is a serious and tragic matter, and the state will continue its efforts to move these proceedings forward in a timely fashion,” said Jackley.

On February 6, 2012, Berget was sentenced to death for the 2011 killing of Senior Corrections Officer Ronald ‘RJ’ Johnson during a failed attempt to escape from the Sioux Falls Penitentiary. Berget was serving a life sentence for attempted murder and an additional life sentence for raping a convenience store clerk. Berget had engaged in countless escape attempts  in the  past.

In January of 2013, The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed 11 issues, including    the appropriateness of the death sentence for Berget’s crime. However, the Court reversed the original sentence because the admission of statements Berget made to a psychiatrist violated Berget’s right against self-incrimination and remanded the case to the trial court for a limited re-sentencing and the opportunity for Berget to call the psychiatrist as a witness. At the re-sentencing, Berget did not call the psychiatrist as a witness but sought to introduce alleged new evidence regarding his family as   mitigation against a new death sentence. The trial court again sentenced Berget to   death by lethal injection.

Berget appealed from the trial court’s re-imposition of a death sentence claiming that the Court should have opened up the record to take additional evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court rejected Berget’s appeal, citing the fact that Berget had a full opportunity to present all his desired mitigating evidence at his original sentencing. Berget petitioned the South Dakota Supreme Court to rehear his appeal, which the court denied in an order issued October 17, 2014. In March 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied Berget’s petition Writ of Certiorari.

-30-