Category: Uncategorized

Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to Federal Government Withholding of Education Funds over Transgender

PIERRE, S.D.- Attorney General Marty Jackley announced that South Dakota has joined 18 other State Attorneys General and the Governors of Kentucky and North Carolina in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief, challenging the federal government’s withholding of education funds over transgender.

“President Obama’s directive that children of opposite sex must be required to share locker rooms and bathrooms under the threat of lawsuit and withholding of education funding has been halted by a nationwide federal preliminary   injunction.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues to act on its threat by forcing this extraordinary intrusion upon our schools. The Attorneys General are again stepping forward to protect children by asking the United States Supreme Court to allow school districts to avoid placing young children of opposite sex in the same bathroom or  locker room,” said Jackley.

The brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., Mother Deirdre Grimm.

The case involves a school board in Virginia making accommodations for an individual born as a girl that self identifies as a boy wanting to use the boys’ bathroom in school. The Federal District Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring the school board to allow the girl to use the boys’ bathroom after it was directed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to afford controlling deference to the Department of Education and Department of Justice letter that makes it discriminatory for a school to separate male and female bathrooms, unless each student is allowed to select either bathroom in accordance with that student’s asserted gender identity. The United States Supreme Court has stayed the 4th Circuit Court mandate and the District Court preliminary injunction, pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari from the school   board.

South Dakota had previously joined 24 other states in parallel lawsuits filed in Texas and Nebraska against the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. The challenge was initiated by a letter threatening states with loss of all educational funding under Title IX unless every public school in the country allowed students to select restrooms, showers and dormitories based on their expressed   gender identity. A federal district court in Texas recently entered a  nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the letter, and withholding of education funding, which applies nationally.

There is no cost for South Dakota to join these proceedings.

Senator Soholt just posted this video on her facebook page about her support for Roads and Bridges.

It’s very nice, and professionally done. She spent some money on having this produced for Social Media.

If you’re a candidate, should you do this?  My answer is “Depends on how much you have in your campaign account.”  I suspect Senator Soholt, running against an independent, with no Democrat in the race, has enough of a budget to do so.  If you’re a beginning or challenger candidate, you probably don’t. If you want to do a video, by all means, do so. But shoot it on your phone, and use free editing software.

Thinking in a “campaigny” mode, The money you would spend on a professionally shot and produced video would also get you pretty far on a postcard that’s directly targeted to people you know will vote, versus a professionally produced video that I’m seeing up in Brookings, and don’t have that person on the ballot.

It’s the sniper approach versus the scattergun approach. Both have value, but it depends on what you’ve got to spend.

Social media videos, newspaper ads, tv, they all encompass the scattergun approach where you blast messages out there and hope you hit a voter (much like goose hunting).  They’re tried and true techniques, and have been used for years.

But so have Postcards, robocalls, e-mail campaigns, etc. They’re of a directly targeted nature – a laser or sniper approach – where you go exactly to the person you know who has a history of voting in, say 3 of the last 4 general elections.  They’ve been around almost as long as political newspaper ads have been.

Why target? Odds are, if you have a targeted voter who has pulled the lever in several elections, you can count on them voting again. So you need to get your name in front of them, even if it’s for a moment when the card passes from their mailbox to the trash.

(Yes, I do quite a few postcards through my business Dakota Campaign Store.  They work and they aren’t going away anytime soon.)

To me, targeting your message is of foundational importance in a political campaign. Think of it as a cake. A targeted message would be a layer in the cake. There is also a layer for traditional newspaper and broadcast advertising.

And if you can afford it, there’s a place for social media videos. They’re like icing to make it pretty, polished and professional looking. Possibly sprinkles.

How does it fit into your campaign? I’ll close by saying that there’s no rights or wrongs, it all depends on what you can afford, and what you want to emphasize.

Rounds, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Provide Financial Stability to Muni Bonds

Allows high quality municipal debt to be classified at a level equivalent to debt issued by corporations

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), members of the Senate Banking Committee, led a bipartisan group of senators in introducing legislation to allow high-quality municipal debt to be classified at a level equivalent to debt issued by corporations. Debt sold by state and local governments is currently excluded from consideration under a rule requiring banks to hold enough highly liquid assets to fund their operations for 30 days. This exclusion may create a disincentive for banks to hold their positions in the municipal-debt market, potentially making it harder for state and local governments to issue bonds to fund infrastructure projects.

“Making sure South Dakota and our municipalities have access to capital at the best possible rates is vital for communities to finance important infrastructure projects,” said Rounds. “Our legislation would allow banks to count qualifying municipal debt as High Quality Liquid Assets, helping to maintain demand for the debt which would prevent borrowing rates for municipalities from dramatically increasing.”

Under proposed rules issued by federal banking regulators, debt sold by states and localities isn’t eligible to count as High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA), which means they won’t qualify as assets necessary for banks to retain under new funding requirements issued following the financial crisis. These requirements ensure that banks maintain a liquidity coverage ratio that includes holding a certain amount of HQLA, but prohibits munis from being considered as HQLA. The rules effectively cabin off an entire category of high-quality and highly liquid debt from being considered as HQLA, limiting the incentive for financial institutions to hold these assets and potentially adversely affecting the issuance of such debt by states and municipalities.  

The Federal Reserve recently weighed in on the issue, making limited changes to their previously issued rule. However, the two other regulators involved—the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp—have made no changes to allow the institutions they regulate to count municipal bonds toward their liquidity buffers. The Rounds-Warner-Schumer bill would categorize certain types of municipal debt as Level 2B, on par with certain corporate debt, and would receive a 50% equivalent to the liquidity ratio requirement. This action would bring municipal bond debt on par with corporate debt, and help stabilize the municipal securities market. 

In addition to Sens. Rounds, Warner and Schumer, the legislation is co-sponsored by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), David Vitter (R-La.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).

###

With regards to the Argus Leader story this AM where two of the three candidates running for the legislature were Muslim….

“Muslims have been talked about a lot in some of the political campaigns that are going on so I think that it’s important for people to be aware of the Muslims in their own community and I think it’s important for Muslims to define ourselves within the larger community,” Koch said. “We live here and we want to have a positive impact on our state and our community.”

Michael Saba, a Democrat and Muslim, is running for a District 9 House seat.

Apparently, no one bothered to actually ask Saba.

A commenter noted under my original story that he’s actually a practitioner of a Christian faith. And the passage noting his religious beliefs are now mysteriously absent from the story this afternoon.

(Maybe they should have picked up the phone.)

I was working and then on the road for part of it, although I did catch a portion of it.

What did I miss? And who do you think won?

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader has an article this AM noting that two of the three Democrats running in the District this fall happen to be practicing Muslims.  I’m not sure why it’s a big deal, but the Argus thinks it is:

“Muslims have been talked about a lot in some of the political campaigns that are going on so I think that it’s important for people to be aware of the Muslims in their own community and I think it’s important for Muslims to define ourselves within the larger community,” Koch said. “We live here and we want to have a positive impact on our state and our community.”

Michael Saba, a Democrat and Muslim, is running for a District 9 House seat.

Koch said he decided to fill the Democratic vacancy in the District 9 in August after candidate Holly Boltjes withdrew. He said he hopes to support Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s proposal to expand Medicaid in the state and oppose measure that could reduce rights of LGBT people.

Read it here.

I’m hearing more about him being a liberal in this article than I am about him being a Muslim.

If it was an article intended to be about a candidate’s religion and the legislature, the biggest issue the article ignored is South Dakota’s 2012 ban on Sharia Law which was heard and signed into law during the 2012 Legislative session. After about 20 states in the union proposed measures, South Dakota is one of only seven states (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama) which have passed a ban.

The measure did attract some national attention at the time. According to MSNBC:

HB 1253, which passed 29-4 in the state Senate on Tuesday, is about as brief as they come — one line: “No court, administrative agency or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code,” it reads.

Gov. Daugaard’s general counsel Jim Seward testified that the bill served to “answer the question of the Sharia law” without being unconstitutional or interfering with business interests.

This bill was motivated by a “growing demographic concern in Sioux Falls,” Seward said, referring to the influx of immigrants from majority Muslim countries.

“I would be less than fully honest with you if I didn`t also say that part of the purpose of (HB)1253 is to deal with what I am going to say generally has been referred to as Shariah law,” Republican Rep. Roger Hunt, who sponsored the bill, said in a judiciary committee hearing.

and…

The South Dakota bill does exactly what that Oklahoma legislation did, “albeit in a slightly more general manner,” said CAIR’s Abbas, who was involved in the successful challenge to the Oklahoma measure.

Read that here.

The measure, solely sponsored by State Rep. Roger Hunt, was a bit more controversial in the House, passing 47-22….

But once it was taken up in the State Senate, if flew through on a 29-4 vote.

District 9’s delegation at the time (including those grouped together by re-districting) unanimously supported the measure which stated simply “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code,”  which applied on a broad basis to not just Sharia Law, but Canon Law, and other religious codes.

The Governor signed it, and it’s the law of the land in South Dakota.

If there was one issue you would have thought the Argus would have noted in an article they just felt they had to write about the topic of Muslims running for the legislature in South Dakota, it would have been that.

What do you think?

(What was that I was saying last week?   -PP)

Gov. Daugaard To Appoint
David Lust To District 34 State House Seat

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard announced today that he will appoint former state Rep. David Lust of Rapid City to the vacant seat in the state House representing District 34.

Lust will succeed Rep. Dan Dryden, who passed away last month. Rep. Dryden’s current term began in January 2015 and ends in early January 2017, prior to the next legislative session. Lust will serve until the end of that term.

“Rep. Dryden’s passing left a real void, and I appreciate David Lust’s willingness to return,” said Gov. Daugaard. “District 34 voters elected David Lust four times to represent them, and he was an excellent legislator.”

Lust is an attorney and a partner at Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore in Rapid City. He previously served from 2007 to 2015 in the state House, and was House Majority Leader from 2011 to 2015. Since leaving the Legislature, Lust has served on the Ellsworth Development Authority and on the State Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners.

“It was very meaningful to me that Judy Dryden asked me to apply to complete Dan’s term, and I thank the Governor for this opportunity,” said Lust. “Dan was a good friend and a great person, and it means a lot to be able to complete his term and fulfill his commitment to the people of District 34 and the state of South Dakota.”

Rep. Dryden was also a candidate for reelection to the state House this fall. Under South Dakota law, Dryden’s name will remain on the November ballot. If Dryden is reelected, it will create a vacancy for the term that begins in January 2017, which would also be filled by gubernatorial appointment. Gov. Daugaard would plan to appoint Lust to fill that vacancy as well.

District 34 includes western Rapid City, generally including the areas west of Mt. Rushmore Road, Dinosaur Hill, and “the gap” on West Main Street, and including sites such as Camp Rapid, Canyon Lake, the Sioux San Hospital, West Middle School, and Southwest Middle School.

-30-

South Dakota Chamber of Commerce Opposes Amendment V

Pierre, SD – September 23, 2016 – One of South Dakota’s leading business advocate and nonpartisan organizations, the Chamber of Commerce & Industry, has come out in official opposition to Amendment V.

“South Dakota has a good business climate, low taxes, and no gridlock,” said David Owen, President of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry, “why would we want to copy California, a state with high taxes, mountains of debt, and political gridlock?”

Amendment V would heavily revise South Dakota’s constitution by hiding party labels on the ballot and installing a merged primary system similar to that in effect for statewide elections in California. Amendment V would apply to all elections in South Dakota other than Presidential elections.

“Amendment V is backed by an out-of-state group using South Dakota for a political experiment. It is attempting to solve problems we don’t have here in South Dakota,” Owen added.

The Amendment V campaign is funded by 76% out-of-state money, with over 70% coming from a single group in New York, NY.

“Thank you to the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce for seeing Amendment V for what it is: an anti-transparent effort to hide party labels from South Dakota voters,” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of South Dakotans Against V.

The Chamber of Commerce joins a coalition of nonpartisan organizations including the South Dakota Farm Bureau and South Dakota Association of Cooperatives in opposing Amendment V.

For more information, voters should visit www.VoteNoOnV.com.

##

While South Dakota Democrats are making their focus claiming the GOP candidates are just like Donald Trump because they are going to vote for him, the truth is much farther off.

If you noticed this AM, the Argus Leader took a break in political coverage from fawning over Rick Weiland, and noted that the Republican candidates aren’t exactly in lockstep with GOP Presidential Nominee Donald Trump when it comes to his comments about building a wall between the US and Mexico:

The Republican incumbents say they want better security at the borders and tougher penalties on people who enter the country illegally, but neither is fixated on Trump’s vision for a physical barrier.

and..

“We’re a country with a history of welcoming people but we’re also a country of laws,” Sen. John Thune said. “We want to provide incentives to people who are going to come here and play by the rules, not illegal immigrants who are going to come and become citizens after they’re granted amnesty.”

and..

Noem said the country’s top priority needs to be restoring security at the border and providing additional resources to aid border patrol agents. She said she doesn’t support Donald Trump’s proposal to deport millions of illegal aliens but wouldn’t support amnesty for immigrants that have arrived in the United States illegally.

“We certainly do not have control over what is going on at our border,” Noem said. “I believe we need to build a wall where it makes sense.”

Read it all here.

It sounds like the GOP candidates want to enforce the laws and responsibilities the Federal Government has, but isn’t honoring. Before we start digging deeper into the issue.

Maybe not sensationalistic. But we hire them to do a good job. And that’s what they’re doing.

No Room for Error in National Security Strategy
By Sen. John Thune

The recent bombing and attempted bombings in New York and New Jersey, as well as the shopping mall attack that occurred less than 200 miles from South Dakota’s eastern border, have reminded us once again that the United States isn’t immune to the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorism. Sadly, we’ve seen these types of attacks before, both in San Bernardino and Orlando. We must remain vigilant and do everything we can to ensure potential risks are identified and eliminated, because when it comes to our national security strategy, there is no room for error. 

ISIS has already claimed responsibility for the attack in St. Cloud, a city typically more threatened by an early winter than a knife-wielding ISIS fighter. And we know the man responsible for planting explosive devices in New York and New Jersey neighborhoods was inspired by the radical teachings of Al Qaeda and ISIS leaders. Law enforcement and intelligence communities acted swiftly after these attacks, and I’m hopeful we’ll soon know more about them, the men who carried them out, and in doing so, be able to piece together their motives and any additional ties to terrorist groups like ISIS. 

ISIS, once described as the “JV team” by President Obama, has quickly grown into a global network. There’s no question the rise of ISIS can be traced, in part, to the president’s decision to prematurely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Our departure from the region left a hole in Iraq’s security, which created an opportunity for ISIS to expand its reign of terror. Despite the carnage that’s repeatedly filled our TV screens – carnage that cannot be denied – the president and his administration continue to downplay the threat posed by ISIS. This is a gross miscalculation. 

In Congress, we’re working to keep American families safe from the threat of terrorism. Senate Republicans will continue to push for the resources our military needs to defeat ISIS and other threats abroad. We will continue pursuing policies that strengthen our borders so we know who is coming in and out of our country – a key component to our national security. And we will continue supporting policies that give our intelligence and security agencies the tools they need to keep the American people safe.

As the leader of the Commerce Committee, which oversees our nation’s transportation system, I’ve looked for ways to improve security on our nation’s roads and railways, and in our skies, too. I fought hard to include numerous airport security provisions in the aviation bill I helped get through Congress earlier this year. Also, I recently introduced a bill that would strengthen security on our nation’s highways and railways by closing the gap in the Transportation Security Administration’s approach to surface transportation security.   

Terrorists don’t target one political party or another. They don’t care if you’re a Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Their only goal is to disrupt our peace of mind and cut to the core of our freedom. So when it comes to national security, leaders in Washington must rise above politics and work together to defeat ISIS and fund the men and women who defend our freedom around the globe. It’s our duty, and it’s what the American people deserve.

###