Category: Uncategorized

House Bill 1076 sent to 41st day on 9-4 vote. What we learned.

Pat Powers

House Bill 1076 had a lot of crash and thunder surrounding it, but after testimony today, it died an appropriate death as we learned some things about the measure.

First, we learned that the measure sponsor Lynn Hix-DiSanto puts a lot of stock in facebook, as she based popular support on the measure on how many people viewed her facebook page, and how people commented.

Next, we learned that the sponsors of the measure probably didn’t bother to consult with DSS when they wrote it, because they dropped the bombshell that the 100,000 people the bill wanted to drug test are barred from it under federal law.  Because SNAP is a federal program, and states cannot put further restrictions on it under federal law. Oops.

We also learned that the genesis of this measure came when people went to Senator Betty Olson concerned about drug use on the Cheyenne and Standing Rock reservations. It was actually related that someone said “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”   I doubt that helped their case today.  (I gasped when I heard that one).

I also learned that you could have taken all of the Democrats from the room, and the bill still would have been rejected by a strong Republican Majority of 7, as they and 2 Democrats voted against it, and it was only supported by 4 Republicans, three of which were sponsors.

It’s done. And with good reason.  It was bad legislation which would have been worse law.

Secretary of State receives petition challenge

Pat Powers

Secretary of State receives petition challenge

Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that a challenge was submitted January 27 on the initiated measure To Set A Maximum Finance Charge for Certain Licensed Money Lenders.

The Secretary of State’s office will verify the petition challenge in the coming months. There is not a deadline in state statute as to when the verification process must be completed.

The challenge was submitted by Craig Olson and Aaron Lorenzen.

For more information regarding the challenge process please visit: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-ballot-questions.aspx

#30#

Listening to HB 1076. The sponsor is basing this on facebook views, and her expert wants everyone to get treatment on the county’s dime.

Pat Powers

I’m listening to the testimony on HB 1076. Is DiSanto really citing facebook views and facebook likes as support for her bill?

Annette Bosworth tried that in her election, too.

It wasn’t convincing then, either.

…..

And here comes the expert, who seemed a bit scattered….

I love the part where this 2nd gal testifying wants to add to the bill that people testing positive are sent for addiction counseling…. Her very profession… And notes they’ll probably qualify for indigent care.

So.. she wants an amendment for an expansion of government to be expanded even further, have a huge drain on county resources, only to end up in her pocket!

…..

And now we have Florence Thompson, a big supporter of Lora Hubbel, testifying in favor of it.  Yeah… need I say more?

…..

Oh God. Sen. Betty Olson is talking about how the reservations have rampant drug problems, and people went to her saying “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”  And she keeps saying “these people.”   Please. Stop.

And she’s comparing the drug test to voting, talking about driver’s licenses, and having to prove who we are for voting. “We always have to prove who we are to get..”  Aside from the fact, poll tests were also found unconstitutional, Betty.  Jeez.

…..

Lynn Valenti, DSS – Opponent.

Federal Law apparently prevents testing for SNAP. Oops…   And 86% of people on TANF are children, 79% of them live with people, who are not their parents.

Adult TANF recipients are required to work, and they’re probably being tested anyway. But barring that, private employers are not subject to due process as states are. (Cites my Florida case).

Huge fact – IN OUR STATE, DRUG FELONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TANF.

Talks about other state’s experience on suspicion based testing, and considerable administration costs against catching so few to make it not worth it.

Drug test cost is $45 each for people making $7000 a year.

State will have to spend money defending what is clearly an and absolutely unconstitutional law, and it does nothing for getting people off of drugs, aside from no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population.  And alcohol use is even lower.

…..

Terry Dosch – represents 18 Behavioral Health agencies, statewide.

Says it lacks merit. Imposes impediments to people receiving the care that they need. And also reiterates that no evidence of prevalence of drug abuse among TANF recipients that’s any different than the general population.

…..

Rep for Presentation Sisters from Aberdeen –

Finds it unnecessary, offensive, etcetera..  Says it seems that it is focused find on those on drugs, than assisting those in need.  (Rep. DiSanto, you’re making the nuns angry.)

…..

Rebuttal….

Lynne DiSanto – Going back to public feedback, and her facebook responses, and regurgitating her tropes on the measure, and how people will supposedly “clean up in preparation of the test,”  And repeats previous testimony despite it’s prion refutation.

…..

Committee questions.

Rep Sly talks about reservation statement. Asks Valenti – Does State have jurisdiction over SNAP TANF on reservations.  “Yes… we do have quality assurance in place, and office of fraud & recovery investigations unit. We have a very low incidence of fraud in this state.  If issues, we investigate, if fraud, not allowed to participate.”

Rep. Soli – Proponents say will help people who are identified as addicted. How would treatment be paid for? DiSanto – “Federal Government doesn’t allow us to drug test SNAP. Medicaid in SD only covers substance abuse for pregnant women and adolescents. A few programs, but limited. Costs prohibitive.”

Rep Lana Greenfield – SNAP & TANF; for sponsor – other areas where the welfare could be affected? “specifically addressing SNAP & TANF, nothing else.”

Rep. Chip Campbell – for Valenti – questions on numbers…  If benefit to the state, SNAP would be the area to focus on?  Valenti – “SNAP a Federal Government Program. Federal Law prohibits additional conditions on eligibility. Drug testing is prohibited as a qualification. It’s off the table. Not legally permissible. Would put federal benefits in jeopardy.”  Campbell noting it happened in Wisconsin, and the state sued the federal government for clarification.

…

Committee discussion.

Haugaard – Hawaii reviewing possibility of drug testing. Talking about numbers and costs for DSS. Coming to point in time where we’ll have to limit services. Should provide services without accountability. DSS is a creation of the state in more recent years.  Churches need to step up to the plate and do these things.  Appropriate to have the discussion.  Wants to move this to the House floor.

Rep Lana Greenfield – also wants to move this to the floor for further discussion. Who are we protecting and who are we serving? Not protecting police, ER people who have to contain these people, not protecting families. Children suffering, kids come into classroom and can’t focus on classes.  Need to move this on to the house floor.

Call for action….

Haugaard/Greenfield – do pass. Haugaard, we should move this to the House floor. Discussion that should be aired out.

Sly/Soli – Defer to 41st day.  We recognize there is an issue in the state, but it doesn’t just reside in TANF/SNAP recipients.  Lots of other public assistance going on. Pell grants, tax subsidies, etc. A lot of public assistance dollars go out from the state, but this is a narrow focus on people who are struggling to get their lives together.

Munsterman – Voted in past, but there’s a lot more data now. Or more wiser. Now more states with a track record. Not worth the squeeze. Put to 41st.

Soli – I wish this could work. But this plan is not going to advance this for any of these folks. We find someone who is addicted, but no funds for treatment? It’s a black hole. Drug rate use is lower among this population.  Send to 41st day, but refocus on what’s keeping people in poverty.

Haugaard – Controlled substances defined by statute. Deterrent factor worthwhile.

—

Roll call vote puts this measure – 41st day – 9 ayes, 4 nayes.

I think every time I appear in the Argus, my picture should be that huge.

@SoDakCampaigns

Good Lord! Are they trying to scare the rats in the basement!?! I think every time I appear in the Argus, my picture should be that huge!

scary_picture

… I think I had a razor burn or zit or something on my chin when this was taken…. Seriously, I know it’s what I sent them, and they just plugged it into their web site. But I don’t think I was prepared to review every blemish in my skin!

And yes, I’m writing about the offensive House Bill 1076, and encouraging legislators to reject it.

Is Senate Bill 95 the answer to the Bosworth problem?

Pat Powers

Here’s the promised election petition reform bill, which would allow for candidacies to be registered for a fee, as opposed to having petitions circulated.

SENATE BILL NO. 95

Introduced by: Senators Otten (Ernie), Monroe, and Tidemann and Representatives Werner, Bolin, Deutsch, Gosch, Heinemann (Leslie), and Qualm

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to allow certain candidates for elective office to pay filing fees in lieu of submitting nominating petitions, and to create the election filing fee fund.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
    In lieu of a nominating petition required pursuant to § 12-5-1.4, 12-6-4, or 12-6-7, a candidate for the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, Governor, or for office in the State Legislature may, within the time limits established for the submission of nominating petitions, submit to the secretary of state a notice of candidacy with the election filing fee in an amount equal to one percent of the annual salary of the office sought as it exists on January first of the year of the election. The form of the notice of candidacy shall be prescribed by the State Board of Elections. The secretary of state shall deposit any election filing fees collected into the election filing fee fund established in section 4 of this Act.
    The candidate shall file the notice of candidacy and pay the election filing fee at the same time. The candidate may pay the election filing fee in cash or by credit card, money order, orwire transfer. Once paid, the election filing fee may not be refunded.
Section 2. That § 12-6-11 be amended to read as follows:
12-6-11. It shall be the duty of the The secretary of state, as soon as the time for filing nominating petitionsin his office or notices of candidacy has passed, shall immediately to certify to the several county auditors of the state the names of the persons in whose behalf nominating petitions or notices of candidacy have been filed in his office as candidates for each political party separately, with including the name of the office for which each person is a candidate, and. The secretary of state shall provide the candidate information separately for each political party and also certify the color, style and form of the official primary election ballot of each political party.
Section 3. That chapter 12-7 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
    In lieu of a certificate of nomination required pursuant to § 12-7-1, an independent candidate for the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, Governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, public utilities commissioner, or for office in the State Legislature, who is not nominated by a primary election or by political party convention, may, within the time limits established for the submission of certificates of nomination, submit to the secretary of state a notice of candidacy with the election filing fee in an amount equal to one percent of the annual salary of the office sought as it exists on January first of the year of the election. The form of the notice of candidacy shall be prescribed by the State Board of Elections. The secretary of state shall deposit any election filing fees collected into the election filing fee fund established in section 4 of this Act.
    The candidate shall file the notice of candidacy and pay the election filing fee at the same time. The candidate may pay the election filing fee in cash or by credit card, money order, or wire transfer. Once paid, the election filing fee may not be refunded.
Section 4. That the code be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
    There is hereby created within the state treasury the election filing fee fund for the purpose of providing funds for the operation of election services within the Office of the Secretary of State. Any money in the fund is continuously appropriated to the Office of the Secretary of State.
Section 5. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
    The effective date of this Act is January 1, 2017.

This measure would allow for elections filing fees to be paid in lieu of petitions being circulated.

What do you think? Yea, or Nay?

It would certainly prevent the Bosworth problem from occurring again. And it’s done in other states

Controversial, and likely unconstitutional urine testing measure HB 1076 in committee tomorrow.

Pat Powers

House Bill 1076, a bill to blanket pee-test food stamp recipients which has been held as unconstitutional in Florida, has the first hearing for the measure in front of the House Health and Human Services committee tomorrow morning at 7:45 AM in room 412 of the State Capitol.

The controversial bill, which is criticized yet again in the Rapid City Journal this morning, is being heard in a committee the prime sponsor, Lynn DiSanto, sits as part of. 

Watch for this hearing to be good political theater. It’s a hotly contested topic and we’ll get to hear its sponsors try to argue that the expansion of government and assumption of ‘guilt until innocence is proven’ is somehow a conservative principle.

The District 28 swap-out. Maher to return to Senate

Pat Powers

Former District 28 Senate Republican Ryan Maher turned in petitions yesterday to become “new” District 28 Senate Repubican candidate.

Maher is said to be replacing Betty Olson who is passing on running for another term in the State Senate after a long career in the State Legislature. 

Maher, who originally started out as a Democrat, came home to the GOP in 2010, and has been consistently one of its most conservative members.

Interestingly, Maher’s colleagues always thought he was in the wrong party to start:

…Maher landed the support of Senate GOP head Russ Olson of Wentworth, and was given the post. Olson now says he knew Maher was truly a Republican five minutes after meeting him.

And…

As for his party switch, Maher said was a pretty natural process, though he doesn’t give himself over completely to GOP values either.

“I didn’t buy into the Democratic philosophy. My voting record shows I don’t really buy into the Republican philosophy. I’m more of a libertarian. It’s like the ranchers out there — independents,” Maher said.

Olson said he’s never had any question about Maher’s political beliefs

“As a legislator, Ryan has always been a true conservative with his voting. I believe the John Birch Society had him ranked consistently more conservative than most Republicans, including me,” Olson said. “Ryan has been a fine legislator, whether he was registered as a Democrat or Republican.”

Read it all here.

Ryan is a good egg, and it will be great to see him back in Pierre.  

The only sad thing is Senator Betty Olson giving up another run. Agree or disagree with her, Betty has always been entertaining, and a dose of reality in a legislature that gets too caught up in politics at times.