Jon Ellis over at the Argus is writing on his blog that there’s not a terrible amount of enthusiasm for the presidential contenders in either party:
Democrats and Republicans alike fell into line and gave wins to their presumptive presidential nominees, despite the fact that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have lower favorable ratings than even Pol Pot had during the period of time when he was hiding deep in a Cambodian jungle.
And they haven’t even started killing people. Yet.
What are your thoughts on the presumptive nominee of your respective parties?
I swear I’m going to skip the race unless the twice daily robocalls from the Trump campaign stop…. as they’ve continued long after the Tuesday primary. And even if that happens, I’d like to see some more specifics on what he’s going to do if elected. If I’m to get excited, there’s got to be more than the fact that the alternative is even worse, (which it is.)
And how will the elections shape up for Leadership?
There’s probably not a lot of things drastically altered from the results of this weeks’ primary moving into the next legislative session, but we will see some changes in the leadership structure from comings and goings, especially in the State Senate, with the term limiting of Corey Brown as Senate Majority Leader.
Brown’s departure will leave a big hole in the Senate GOP Caucus, as it’s up in the air over who can take over the political role he assumed during session, and behind the scenes for the caucus, during times of campaigns. Jim White was tapped as his assistant, but this is not going to be the Senate GOP Caucus of 2015-2016.
The Senate was inevitably going to be a much more conservative place, and now it will be even moreso with the election of a few primary contenders who weren’t guaranteed to be there, such as Lance Russell, Stace Nelson, Phil Jensen and Ryan Maher. We’re also adding Neal Tapio, probably Jim Bolin, and others.
Word on the street is that State Senator Brock Greenfield has his eye on Gary Cammack’s position as President Pro Tempore. Given the harder line conservatism of the senate, it remains to be seen if Jim White will return as Assistant Majority Leader, or move up to Brown’s position. The composition of whips may change as well.
Senate Leadership will likely be a very fluid thing over the course of the year. I would not be shocked to see newcomers to the Senate such as Jim Bolin or former GOP ED Lance Russell in the leadership mix somewhere.
But, we shall see.
The House is going to be more of a steady state, with the ascension of Mark Mickelson from Speaker Pro Tempore to Speaker of the House. Steve Westra may be the natural choice to move up to majority leader from assistant, but there will be a lot of new faces, so nothing is guaranteed.
Larry Rhoden who will be returning to the House, and who was formerly in Leadership may find himself called on to take a role in filling a vacancy.
But, I don’t know that I would expect as much of a shakeup as they’ll experience in the Senate.
If you’ve been on facebook lately, or here at the SDWC, you might have noticed some of the elective blowback from Stace Nelson over his successful campaign this past Tuesday. For Example:
Aside from Stace taking the opportunity to be a sore winner, of course, he tries to intimate that everyone is lying about him. According to himself, Stace is as pure as the driven snow, and never did anything “underhanded or dirty.” Despite ample evidence to the contrary such as his own robocalled voice on Sunday Night accusing his opponent of wearing women’s undergarments:
As the dust settles in the race, Nelson isn’t doing much by way of attempting to build bridges, as much as exhibiting cognitive dissonance; in that the beliefs he tries to claim do not match up his behaviors.
Aside from that, a bigger question is whether Nelson’s election represents a problem for the SDGOP?
Reading in comments on this website and elsewhere, Nelson’s election might raise a moral dilemma for some members of the GOP. Do you raise money and support the campaign of someone who is a complete jerk to a significant portion of the party? Or do you just walk away? Already I’m hearing talk from a member or two of the lobbying corps who note that they don’t want any of their donations to go into Nelson’s coffers.
It’s not unlike the GOP’s problem on the national level with whether or not to support Donald Trump as he attacks people and says offensive things. Do you get out and support the nominee, do you support the opponent, or do you just take a pass.
With Donald Trump, the Hillary alternative is even more offensive, so it’s hard to consider that an option. But with Stace, it depends on who the opponent is.
Maybe a better question to ask, is “will Nelson face a GOP problem?”
If Democrats replaced Graeff with someone with political experience and well-liked, the race could become competitive, especially given that Nelson is directly antagonistic with those who had supported him in the past.
Upon his entrance into the race, he openly attacked the sitting Senator Bill VanGerpen. From his abuse and public name-calling at Senator Bill VanGerpen, one would not have known that pre-US Senate, VanGerpen was his biggest campaign donor, and had jointly campaigned with him in the past.
Nelson has also taken after other legislators, at least one whom he accused of encouraging Caleb Finck to get into the race when he did the opposite. Nelson also attacked Jim Putnam, who had represented the area for years, and has gone after the two house members in his district enough to the point where they were openly in support of his opponent.
Going from his biggest financial supporter to the subject of Nelson’s public abuse in newspapers, its highly doubtful that VanGerpen will be lending any support to the Nelson campaign. The same goes for the House candidates, and most statewide and other elected officials. Does anyone think US Senator John Thune is going to want Nelson within a country mile of him, after Nelson called for Thune being primaried? I don’t think I even need to ask about Senator Mike Rounds.
The GOP does not provide direct cash assistance to candidates as they had in the past, which leaves Nelson’s monetary sources limited, which could crunch him for cash in the face of a serious opponent. For some, letting the seat go to a mildly ineffective Democrat may be preferable to backing someone who will be verbally abusive to his colleagues and causing the kind of drama that arose during his last stint in the legislature.
With the possibility Democrats could put someone tolerable in the race, Nelson may find that burning his bridges has only succeeded in isolating himself on an island of his own making.
Delegation Receives Update From Senior Health Official on Great Plains IHS Crisis Dr. Mary Wakefield Briefs Thune, Rounds, and Noem Ahead of June 17 Field Hearing
From left to right: Dr. Mary Wakefield, Rep. Kristi Noem, Sen. Mike Rounds, and Sen. John Thune
WASHINGTON —U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) today met with Dr. Mary Wakefield, acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to discuss the ongoing crisis at Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities across the Great Plains area. The core mission of IHS, which is part of HHS, is to provide quality health care to tribal citizens throughout the country. Thune, Rounds, and Noem are determined to see that the agency refocuses on its mission, especially in South Dakota.
“I want to thank Dr. Wakefield for taking the time to brief the delegation on what her department is doing to correct the problems faced by Great Plains area IHS facilities,” said Thune. “It’s not an easy job, so I appreciate her attention to this urgent matter. I was also glad to hear that she’s reviewed legislation I recently introduced, the IHS Accountability Act of 2016, and she provided some thoughtful feedback. The only way we’re going to solve this crisis is with a coordinated effort, which includes IHS cooperation and transparency, as well as critical feedback from tribal members in South Dakota.”
“IHS has serious financial, structural and administrative problems, and tribal members in the Great Plains Area have been particularly affected by the agency’s shortcomings,” said Rounds. “I thank Acting Deputy Secretary Dr. Mary Wakefield for meeting with us today to discuss this urgent matter. During the meeting, I shared with her my concerns with IHS and urged her to consult with the tribes before implementing any long-term plans to fix the ongoing issues. Additionally, she indicated her willingness to complete an audit of IHS, which is something my office has requested. I will continue to work with Dr. Wakefield, my colleagues and the tribes to address the systemic problems at IHS.”
“Nearly every facet of IHS in the Great Plains Region faces challenges of life-and-death magnitude,” said Noem. “I appreciate the attention that Dr. Wakefield and her colleagues have given to South Dakota IHS facilities in recent months, but I remain concerned that the pace of change is much too slow while the communication with tribal communities and overall transparency is lacking. I’m hopeful we can continue to work together through agency-level changes and legislative reforms to ensure tribal members receive the care their families need.”
Last month, Thune and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, introduced the IHS Accountability Act of 2016, comprehensive legislation that would address the systemic failures at IHS by increasing transparency and accountability at the agency. Noem also introduced comprehensive legislation in the House today that offers critical structural changes to how IHS operates, addressing both medical and administrative challenges.
On Friday, June 17, at the request of Thune, the Indian Affairs Committee will hold a field hearing at Central High School in Rapid City, South Dakota, on Thune’s IHS reform bill. Thune, Barrasso, Rounds, and Noem are all expected to participate.
NoemLeads Lawmakers in Introducing
Comprehensive IHS Reform Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) – along with Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Brad Ashford (D-NE), Adrian Smith (R-NE), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) – today introduced the Helping Ensure Accountability, Leadership, and Transparency in Tribal Healthcare Act (HEALTTH Act), which offers comprehensive reforms to the crisis-stricken Indian Health Service (IHS).
“The government is required by treaty to provide healthcare to tribal communities. IHS has failed to uphold that duty,” said Rep. Kristi Noem. “The problems are pervasive, but this legislation is comprehensive. From care delivery to hospital administration, the bill aims to dramatically improve the quality of healthcare while making the system more efficient, cost-effective, and accountable.”
“We cannot sit idly by and watch an entire healthcare system remain, at best, inadequate—or worse harm persons and communities,” said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. “This bill is another important step in addressing the health care needs of tribal members in Nebraska and throughout the nation.”
“Access to quality health facilities is an important factor in the growth of tribal communities in Nebraska and across the country. We have an obligation to improve care for Native Americans, and we cannot, in good conscious, stand by and do nothing. I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will support Nebraska tribal communities by investing in healthcare,” said Rep. BradAshford.
“While neighboring practitioners and hospitals are happy to assist when IHS facilities are unable to provide care, it also places serious strains on small, rural providers,” said Rep. Adrian Smith. “This legislation is an important first step in ensuring tribal communities can access the care they deserve while providing predictability for nearby rural communities.”
“No matter where you live, everyone deserves access to quality healthcare,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer. “The HEALTTH Act will make meaningful reforms at the Indian Health Service in order to support a better quality of life on our Indian reservations.”
The HEALTTH Act offers critical structural changes to how IHS operates, addressing both medical and administrative challenges. More specifically, Noem’s legislation:
+ Improves IHS’s ability to secure long-term contracts for hospitals in emergency conditions by allowing for a partnership among IHS, tribal communities and healthcare stakeholders to collaborate throughout the contract negotiating process, rather than leaving those decisions solely to IHS.
+ Addresses the current recruitment problem – for both medical staff and hospital leadership – by putting provisions in place to:
Allow for faster hiring.
Make the existing student loan repayment program tax free, as an added incentive for high-quality employees.
Provide incentives to attract competent and well-trained hospital administrators as well as medical staff.
+ Reforms the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Program by, among other things:
Requiring IHS to develop a new formula for allocating PRC dollars. Under Noem’s bill, IHS would be required to develop a formula based on need, population size, and health status to ensure those areas that have the greatest need receive a greater portion of the funding.
Requiring IHS to negotiate Medicare-like rates for services it pays for with private providers. IHS currently pays a premium for PRC services. Noem’s proposal would bring payments in line with what Medicare pays to stretch every dollar further.
Requiring IHS to address the backlog of PRC payments to private providers. Private hospitals in the Great Plains Area have long expressed concern because IHS has failed to pay their bills. Noem would require IHS to put a strategy in place to get these hospitals paid what they are due.
+ Restores accountability through strategies, such as:
Require IHS to be accountable for providing timely care.
Require the Government Accountability Office to report on the financial stability of IHS hospitals that are threatened with sanction from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
A section-by-section summary of the legislation can be found here or you can access the full text here.
A detailing of Democrats’ affirmative action delegate requirements. From the Argus:
Soon after the state’s Democratic presidential primary ballots were counted last night the South Dakota Democratic Party sent out a list of 14 of the delegates who will vote at the national party’s convention in Cleveland.
and…
And the process of selecting them isn’t simple. Affirmative action goals dictate that the group must be gender balanced, include eight people under the age of 35, at least two Native Americans, three LGBT people, three people with disabilities and at least one African American, one Hispanic and one Asian American.
June 7th Primary Election Turnout Numbers Statewide and County
Pierre, SD – Yesterday’s June 7th primary had a total statewide turnout of 21.93%. The Republican primary had a total turnout of 27.2% and the Democrat Primary saw a turnout of 17.5% from Democrat and Independent voters.
Potential Recount in Legislative Districts 16 and 30
The only possible recounts from last night’s June 7th primary are from Legislative Districts 16 and 30. No other candidate can request a recount.
The official state canvass is set to be held on Tuesday, June 14th at 9:00am Central Standard Time at the State Capitol in room 414.
According to South Dakota Codified Law 12-21-11 if any legislative district comprises more than one county, any candidate for election to or nomination for the Legislature who, according to the official returns, has been defeated by a margin not exceeding two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for such office may, within three days after completion of the official canvass of the returns, file a petition as set forth in § 12-21-10 with the county auditor of each county. Each county auditor shall then conduct a recount.
In the District 16 (Lincoln and Union Counties) election for State Representative the three candidates are:
Name
Votes
Percentage
David L. Anderson
1,166
40.50
Kevin D. Jensen
874
30.36
William “Bill” Shorma
839
29.14
In the District 30 (Custer, Fall River and Pennington Counties) election for State Representative the 5 candidates are:
Name
Votes
Percentage
Tim R. Goodwin
1,508
22.01
Julie Frye-Mueller
1,460
21.31
Richard Mounce
1,445
21.09
Travis Lasseter
1,230
17.96
Marilyn J. Oakes
1,207
17.62
South Dakota Codified Law pertaining to legislative recounts.
SDCL 12-21-11. Complete recount on candidate’s petition in close election in joint legislative district. If any legislative district comprises more than one county, any candidate for election to or nomination for the Legislature who, according to the official returns, has been defeated by a margin not exceeding two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for such office may, within three days after completion of the official canvass of the returns, file a petition as set forth in § 12-21-10 with the county auditor of each county. Each county auditor shall then conduct a recount.
12-21-11.1. Notice to secretary of state of petition filed with county auditor. Whenever a petition for recount is filed with the county auditor for an election which has been canvassed by the State Board of Canvassers, the county auditor shall notify the secretary of state of the petition for recount.
12-21-2. Composition and appointment of county recount board–Oath to act in good faith and with impartiality. The county recount board of each county which conducts a recount authorized by this chapter shall consist of a recount referee and two voters of the county to be appointed by the presiding judge of the circuit court for that county, and shall provide for representation of the two political parties with the largest party registration in that county. The recount referee shall be a duly qualified member of the bar of the State of South Dakota and a member of the political party which polled the largest number of votes for Governor in the county in the last gubernatorial election. Prior to serving, each member of the recount board shall take an oath that the member will act in good faith and with impartiality. The state board of elections shall prescribe the oath to be taken.
12-21-20. Notice to circuit judge of recount petition–Appointment and convening of recount board. The county auditor, immediately on the due filing of any petition for a recount or upon receipt from the secretary of state of notice of such filing with the secretary of state, shall notify in writing, with the seal of the auditor’s office, the presiding judge of the circuit court for the auditor’s county. The presiding judge shall appoint a board, pursuant to § 12-21-2, for each county in the circuit in which a recount is to be conducted. The presiding judge may appoint the board anytime within thirty days prior to a primary or general election or upon the filing of the petition for recount. The board shall then convene in the office of the county auditor on the second Monday at nine a.m. following the filing of the petition. However, if the second Monday is a legal holiday, the board shall convene at nine a.m. of the day following. The county auditor shall provide the recount board with laws, rules, and forms to use in conducting the recount. The board shall then proceed with the recount.
12-21-39. Reconvening of state canvassers after recount–Recanvass and corrected abstract. The secretary of state shall file all certificates involved in the recount as to any office, nomination, position, or question that have been received from the county recount boards. The secretary of state shall fix a time and place as early as reasonably possible for reconvening the State Board of Canvassers and shall notify the members of the State Board of Canvassers. The State Board of Canvassers shall reconvene at the time and place so designated and recanvass the official returns as to the office, nomination, or position, as corrected by the certificates. The State Board of Canvassers shall make a new and corrected abstract of the votes cast and declare the person elected or nominated as the case may be or the determination of any question. The corrected abstract shall be signed by the members of the State Board of Canvassers in their official capacities and shall have the great seal of the state affixed. The corrected abstract shall be filed by the secretary of state.
State of South Dakota to Join State Attorneys General Challenge to Federal Bathroom and Locker Room Mandate
PIERRE, S.D.- Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that South Dakota will join other State Attorneys General in challenge to President Obama’s letter directive to school districts threatening both civil rights litigation and the withholding of educational funds to the States.
“As Attorney General it was and remains my hope that our country and state can find a solution to the transgender concerns without forcing children of the opposite sex into the same bathrooms and locker rooms. The President’s attempt to require children of opposite sex to share locker rooms and bathrooms under the threat of lawsuit and withholding of education funding is a one size fits all solution that goes beyond his constitutional authority. It is my contention that federal law cannot direct local school districts on who can use locker rooms and bathrooms. These issues need to be handled as they have been for a long time- on the state and local level,” said Jackley.
In 1964, Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, making it illegal for employers to invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-2. Eight years later, Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Title IX regulations issued by the Department of Education likewise expressly allow recipients of federal funding to “provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” provided that the facilities provided for “students of one sex” are “comparable” to the facilities provided for “students of the other sex.” The term “gender identity: does not appear in the text or regulators of Title IX.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) contend that Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of “sex” extends to discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” Jackley contends that the DOJ and DOE lack any authority to issue such direction. It is the duty of Congress to legislate and the duty of the Executive Branch, including DOJ and DOE, to administer and enforce the laws that Congress enacts. Through this joint letter, DOJ and DOE have unilaterally attempted to change the clear meaning of law passed by Congress and impose new obligations on covered entities.
A case was filed May 25, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Several Attorneys General anticipate filing an additional challenge to the President’s authority to issue the letter. This filing may be separate from the Texas case or filed in a different district court.
If you’re wondering why I wasn’t shocked, you have a short memory:
Noem Leads Lawmakers in Introducing
State of South Dakota to Join State Attorneys General Challenge to Federal Bathroom and Locker Room Mandate