Marsy’s Law is First Ballot Question to Officially Make Ballot Campaign Announces Hiring of Two New Staff Positions and New Website
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota, an organization composed of citizens and victim rights advocates, announced today that it is the first ballot question to pass the challenge period with no challenges. As a result, it is the first initiated ballot question to officially make the ballot for the General Election on November 8, 2016. The Secretary of State has classified the ballot question as “Constitutional Amendment S.”
Last November, Marsy’s Law for South Dakota filed nearly 53,000 signatures with the Secretary of State, well in excess of the 27,741 required by South Dakota law for an initiated constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot.
“This is another great day for crime victims in South Dakota,” said Jason Glodt, former prosecutor and State Director for Marsy’s Law for South Dakota, “South Dakota has some of the weakest crime victim rights in the nation and we are now one step closer to giving victims equal rights that would actually be enforceable by a court of law.”
“We are also ramping up our grassroots campaign effort,” said Glodt. “We are excited to announce that Tami Haug-Davis and Jordan Callaghan have joined our team and will be helping to make our grassroots organization even stronger.”
“Tami and Jordan have decades of experience fighting for crime victims and they will be a strong asset to our team,” said Glodt.
Tami Haug-Davis will be the Outreach Director for Marsy’s Law for South Dakota. She is a Licensed Professional Counselor from Sioux Falls who has over 25 years of experience working in child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Tami has experience in child protection and 24 hour crisis intervention for domestic violence and sexual assault victims. Tami has taught workshops and seminars in family violence and she has done treatment work with batterers and offenders.
Jordan Callaghan from Vermillion will be a Field Director for Marsy’s Law for South Dakota. Jordan graduated from the University of South Dakota with a Bachelor’s Degree in Anthropology and Psychology, and is currently obtaining her Masters of Social Work from the University of South Dakota. She has extensive experience advocating for marginalized and vulnerable populations in South Dakota.
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota also has a new website located at www.marsyslaw.us with a state-specific page link at http://marsyslaw.us/marsys-law-state-efforts/south-dakota/ . The website is a comprehensive source for information about Marsy’s Law and includes regular updates from states where Marsy’s Law campaigns are currently underway.
Was anyone attending the South Dakota Democrat New Years’ party that was scheduled this Thursday? No, you weren’t alone in not going. Apparently, Democrats couldn’t muster up anyone, because the event has mysteriously disappeared from their web site, as well as their facebook page.
But gosh darn it, much like their candidate rosters, those pages are just not there anymore.
What am I hearing? One of my spies called the SDDP HQ and asked about it the event, and it was confirmed as canceled, due to lack of interest.
The office claimed that they hoped to reschedule for Feb or March. Assuming that anyone is interested in being a Democrat by then. Clearly, given the lack of Democrats running for the legislature, or for US Senate, saying people might be interested in being a Democrat by February or March might still be an iffy proposition.
But, while there is no $100 a person fundraiser, at least Democrats have a new campaign theme.
The South Dakota Democrat Party: Canceled, due to lack of interest.
The bill that was promised for the purpose of allowing ride sharing companies such as Lyft and Uber to operate in South Dakota has been filed and assigned a number. And this one looks like it might be a popular measure.
This measure has both House and Senate Leadership on it, and I have to give them kudos for what on the surface appears to be legislation we can thank them for as they reduce regulatory hurdles, and dial back the heavy hand of government regulation to make the Uber concept a reality in the state.
AFP Ratchets Up Pressure To Stop Medicaid Expansion Under Obamacare New Ads Will Air In Sioux Falls And Rapid City Encouraging Citizens To Contact Gov. Daugaard
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Americans for Prosperity South Dakota will be going on the airwaves in Sioux Falls and Rapid City today with new advertisements ratcheting up the pressure on lawmakers to reject Medicaid Expansion under Obamacare as a part of next year’s budget.
The radio advertisements will air in the Sioux Falls and Rapid City markets encouraging citizens to contact Governor Daugaard in order to stop his Medicaid Expansion proposal which will increase the national debt by more than $400 million a year.
The ads may be heard at the link below:
State Director Ben Lee offered the following statement:
“States around the nation have taken President Obama’s siren call for Medicaid Expansion only to regret later when costs have surged out of control, putting their states at risk of tax increases or cuts to critical priorities like roads and schools. The Governor’s Medicaid Expansion proposal will increase the national debt by more than $373 million a year — it’s simply not right to shackle our children and grandchildren with that kind of debt. Accepting Medicaid Expansion under Obamacare bares serious risks and our new advertisements will help the public understand these dangers.”
The new radio ads come as the chapter and its volunteers have been placing thousands of calls and hundreds of letters to legislators encouraging members of the legislature to separate Medicaid Expansion from the state budget.
Catch the article in today’s Pierre Capital Journal: The Pierre School Superintendent, Dr. Kelly Glodt, points out that the Governor’s plan for $8000 more for teachers is only going to be worth $3500 when the rubber hits the road:
Superintendent Glodt said although the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposal gets described as raising the average teacher’s pay about $8,000 a year to about $48,000, it won’t work that way and is much more complicated.
The many formulas and circumstances of the 151 public school districts and the changes in state funding formulas will all work out in various ways, Glodt said.
And while teachers need raises, the lowest-paid employees of the Pierre district, custodians and cooks, need raises more than anyone, Glodt said. And the lowest-paid jobs are the hardest to keep filled, Glodt said.
All his teacher slots are filled, but he’s advertising for cooks and janitors every week, he said. Plus, his administrators also deserve a raise, so he would use some of the added funding for that, Glodt said.
If the teacher pay proposal gets approved by the Legislature, it likely will mean an average raise of about $3,500 to Pierre school teachers, not $8,000, he said.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that every district is different, but teachers only getting $3500 of $8,000 seems far from the intent of what’s being promoted.
Is this just a harsh dose of reality, or an indication that legislators need to build in strong directives on how the money is to be used?
I just caught this piece of legislation as it’s been assigned a number and sent to the floor for committee assignment. This measure has been introduced to expand civil forfeiture laws from drug felonies to DUI:
HOUSE BILL NO. 1085
Introduced by: Representatives Haggar (Don), Bolin, DiSanto,Hawley, Latterell, May, Novstrup (Al), Rasmussen, Tulson, and Wiik and Senators Haggar (Jenna), Holien, Olson, Omdahl, and Solano
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for the forfeiture of any vehicle used by a person convicted of a third offense for driving under the influence.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 32-23 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
Any person who is convicted of a third offense violation of § 32-23-1 may forfeit to the state the person’s interest in the vehicle used in the commission of the violation. The state shall process the forfeiture pursuant to the proceedings of § 34-20B-71 to § 34-20B-80, inclusive, and § 34-20B-85 to § 34-20B-88, inclusive. No vehicle may be forfeited pursuant to this section if a co-owner of the vehicle is an innocent party and the forfeiture would create undue hardship on the co-owner.
I might be the only one out there complaining about it, but I can’t help but groan. A bill has been introduced to expand the power of government….. again? This bill represents a tremendous and overly broad expansion of the power of the state when it comes to civil forfeiture.
As it has been used traditionally when it comes to the drug trade, civil forfeiture is used as a tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade, with $12 billion annual profits since it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets resulting from narcotics trafficking. In other words, when it comes to drug use, it is done to remove the element of profitability from the drug trade, since it takes a person’s stuff on the basis as having being purchased with the proceeds of illegal activity.
There’s the problem with this measure. This bill, it doesn’t have anything to do with depriving a felon of the profits of illegal activity. It’s an act to just take a person’s stuff in further punishment. They might have well said they shall take their dog too, because neither are derived from illegal profits.
And what happens to the lien-holders on these confiscated vehicles? I can’t imagine they’d be excited about a measure like this.
Maybe it’s just me, but why are we giving government more power to take our stuff? That doesn’t seem as something in line with Republican principles of limited government. That sounds like it’s in line with a tremendous amount of authority being handed over to government. That kind of authority borders on trying to create a police state.
And interestingly, after complaints from the public, civil forfeiture as exercised by states and the federal government is actually in the process of being limited after it’s excessive use in many cases. So, why are we trying to go the other way?
I don’t want drunks on the road any more than the next person. But, as a Republican who believes in limited government, I certainly don’t want to live in a police state, either.
“That government is best which governs least.”
– Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience.
Alright my faithful SDWC readers and spies…. I’m trying to hunt down another piece of legislation I heard may be floating out there, or at least you can provide an assist with some confirmation.
I’ve gotten word that there may be some legislation coming to help facilitate the expansion of the Avera Health system into the field of dentistry clinics.
At yesterday’s Crackerbarrell in Rapid City, State Senator Phil Jensen made a point to go out of his way to reignite a war of harsh words with Governor Dennis Daugaard that had seemingly died down over the past year or so.
On a question about revenue, Senator Jensen said the governor has finally come out of the closet as a tax-and-spend liberal. Jensen said we had $9 million in tax and fee increases last year, and more would hurt everyone in South Dakota.
Senator Jensen was making a point of calling out the Governor, who, after turning in a series of extremely austere state budgets over the past few years had promoted fee and tax increases for infrastructure maintenance for highways last year, and is now supporting a measure to increase teacher pay from last in the nation. The Governor is also trying to put together a package for a cost-neutral expansion of Medicaid with the Federal government.
Jensen’s comments seem to be a re-ignition of what had been a long cooled war of words starting in 2012 when Jensen expressed his displeasure with the Governor supporting his opponent in the legislative primary in 2012:
Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen of Rapid City is accusing Gov. Dennis Daugaard of “declaring war on conservatives” by picking favorites in some GOP legislative primary races.
and…
“What’s happened is the governor has declared war on conservative Republicans,” Jensen said Thursday. “He wants people in Pierre that will support and represent his agenda, not legislators that will represent the folks in their district.”
Moving past that, Jensen’s relationship with the second floor of the Capital weren’t warmed any at the time of his infamous comments in 2014, which earned Jensen national scorn. In order to inoculate the GOP at large from Jensen’s comments, the Governor made a direct point to distance himself and the party from Jensens’s comments which earned universal condemnation on a national basis:
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Wednesday distanced himself from Jensen in a statement released to the media.
“I found his comments to be completely out of line with South Dakota values,” he said. “I don’t agree with him and I haven’t talked to anyone who does.”
Governor Dennis Daugaard at the 2014 South Dakota State Fair.
The governor’s comments followed the story in Sunday’s Journal in which Jensen, 61, who runs a cookware sales business, explained why he supported the bill that would have allowed businesses to deny service to customers based on sexual orientation and not fear a lawsuit.
While the bill was killed, Jensen defended it to the Journal as legislation that would ensure businesses have the freedom to choose their clientele. He also said that businesses should also have the right to choose based on race and religion – whether that’s right or wrong, he said, can be fairly addressed by the free market, not the government.
“If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,” he said in remarks published Sunday.
Jensen won that primary by the skin of his teeth, and went on to win that general election. Which doesn’t really explain why Jensen felt the need to throw gasoline on the smouldering fire and attack the Governor in anticipation of the upcoming election.
The word in the field is that Jensen will likely have a primary with one, if not possibly two people looking at taking him on for the State Senate seat. With that as the case, why would he be going after the Governor in such an aggressive manner? Is he seeking to run against a MacGuffin versus running on what he’s accomplished?
While it might give Jensen something to run against other than his primary opponent(s), distracting everyone from his legislative record, the downside might be it could give the Governor a reason to personally become involved in his race.
Keeping Environmental Bureaucrats out of Your Tackle Box By Sen. John Thune
I’ve been a vocal opponent of the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) over-intrusion into the American people’s lives. Perhaps the most egregious example came in the form of the agency’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule that turns nearly every body of water – no matter how large or small – into Washington’s jurisdiction. Imagine a farmer or rancher in South Dakota with a small ditch or creek that runs through his or her farmland or a small puddle that’s created by a summer storm. Under WOTUS, that farmer or rancher might need the EPA’s permission to complete certain day-to-day tasks or build necessary structures like pole barns or fences.
As crazy as that sounds, if the liberal wing of the president’s party and EPA bureaucrats had their way, they’d even regulate the tackle South Dakotans use to reel in walleyes from the Missouri River and ban the lead ammunition they use to bag ringnecks in the prairie. These Washington environmental bureaucrats are already reaching into South Dakotans’ backyards through WOTUS, which we’re fighting hard to rein in, and there’s absolutely no reason why they should reach into their tackle boxes and hunting vests as well.
I’ve fought for years to block potential bans that could have a big impact on outdoor recreation in our state and around the country. Alternative kinds of tackle can cost as much as 20 times more than traditional tackle, which is a huge expense for everyone from the recreational angler to the most seasoned sportsman. We should be doing all we can to encourage more young people to participate in outdoor activities like hunting and fishing, not price them out of these sports or provide a disincentive to join.
I fully support sensible regulation that protects the outdoors for future generations, but some of the things the EPA has suggested just go too far. Thankfully, last year Congress passed and the president signed legislation that included my provision to permanently block the EPA from an outright ban on lead ammunition used in the field. That’s a good first step, but solves only half of the problem. I’m glad my provision that would extend this regulatory prohibition to fishing tackle recently cleared an important hurdle in the Senate and is one step closer to enactment. I’ll be working hard this year to make sure we get this common-sense proposal to the president’s desk.
While it might be an uphill fight, taking on the EPA one out-of-touch regulation at a time is worth it. The concrete jungle that is Washington, D.C., and the bureaucrats that inhabit it need a little South Dakota straight talk from time to time, which will help reinforce the message that we don’t need the EPA pushing into every facet of our lives.
the closet as a tax-and-spend liberal. Jensen said we had $9 million in tax and fee increases last year, and more would hurt everyone in South Dakota.
Keeping Environmental Bureaucrats out of Your Tackle Box