Category: Uncategorized

Sounds like an interesting central committee meeting.

Live updates I am getting apparently have several people such as Lee Qualm and Tom Pischke complaining about me and trying to pass a motion for the party to not do business with me.. not sure if it’s because I’ve helped people run against them, or if it’s because I point out actions that defy logic.

Kind of surprised that they feel so threatened by me.  I’ll let you know how that goes.

Gov. Noem Announces District 32 Legislative Appointment

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem appointed Kristin (Kris) Conzet to represent District 32 in the South Dakota House of Representatives, effective February 10, 2024. The vacancy was created after Governor Noem appointed Becky Drury to represent District 34.

“I am happy to appoint Kris to this role,” said Governor Noem. “She has a robust background of public service and I look forward to working with her as District 32’s new Representative.”

Conzet served in the South Dakota State Legislature from 2010-2018. During her time in the legislature, she served as Majority Whip, chaired local government, was vice chair of commerce and energy, and served on health and human services, state affairs, and taxation.

“I am grateful for Governor Noem’s appointment to represent District 32 in the South Dakota House of Representatives,” said Conzet. “Drawing from my previous legislative experience, I am confident in my ability to serve effectively, even with the limited time remaining in this year’s Legislative session.”

Conzet is a strong conservative. While in the legislature, she voted in favor of Constitutional Carry, supported then State Representative Noem’s legislation that firearms manufactured and retained in South Dakota were not subject to federal regulation, and consistently voted for pro-life legislation. Conzet has degrees in English and mass communications from the University of South Dakota. She lives in Rapid City with her husband, Steve, and their daughter, Katie, who is a senior at USD.

###

Duhamel seeks re-election to Senate in Rapid City’s District 32

Rapid City, SD – Senator Helene Duhamel announces her candidacy for a third term in the South Dakota Senate representing District 32 in Rapid City.

Duhamel was appointed by Governor Kristi Noem to serve in the 2020 legislative session. She has twice been re-elected by her constituents and elected by her peers as a Senator Majority Whip. Duhamel currently sits on Senate State Affairs, Rules and Procedures, Transportation, and as chairman of Senate Judiciary. She served on the Redistricting Committee in 2020 and just finished working on the summer study on county funding.

Working in law enforcement, Duhamel shepherds public safety issues important to every citizen of our state, including accessible mental health treatment, incarceration needs, tools to fight crime and more. She advocates for important issues like jobs and economic growth, affordable housing, workforce shortages and childcare solutions. Duhamel leads the charge on bringing a Missouri River pipeline to a parched and growing Western South Dakota.

“It has been a great honor to serve my fellow citizens,” says Helene Duhamel. “I ask for my constituents’ continued confidence and promise to work hard on our unique needs and challenges facing one of the fastest growing areas of the region.”

Duhamel is a fifth generation South Dakotan who worked in television news for more than three decades. The married mother of three remains committed to her state and has served on numerous volunteer and non-profit organizations in Rapid City and the Black Hills.

In looking at the decision, it’s quite a bit to digest, but to answer the question about conflicts of interest moving forward, we look to the conclusions of the majority..

We agree and reformulate the questions presented by the Governor’s request into one question as follows:

Whether Article III, § 12 prohibits all contracts between legislators and the State.

and..

Conclusion:

This case presents an appropriate instance to exercise our advisory opinion jurisdiction under Article V, § 5. The current state of our decisional law concerning Article III, § 12 is not sustainable. Our holdings in Asphalt Surfacing and Pitts, which equated general appropriation for ordinary and current expenses with legislative authorization to enter into specific contracts, are contrary to well established constitutional limits on general appropriation legislation set out in Article XII, § 2 and our cases. These holdings expressed in Asphalt Surfacing and Pitts are, therefore, overruled.

Our answer to the Governor’s restated question whether Article III, § 12 prohibits all contracts between legislators and the State is: No, it does not. The contract restriction stated in Article III, § 12 is not a categorical bar on all contracts funded by the State. Instead, it prohibits a legislator, or former legislator within one year following the expiration of the legislator’s term, from being interested, directly or indirectly, in contracts that are authorized by laws passed during the legislator’s term. The purpose and effect of general appropriation legislation is restricted to simply allocating money to fund state government; it does not, itself, authorize specific contracts relating to ordinary or current expenses.

Big change is that while it would allow Kevin Jensen to benefit indirectly, if his wife’s business is being paid through the state as an expense through the general appropriations bill, it would now not be considered a conflict of interest under the constitution.

However, because the COVID money appropriated through the CARES act involved separate legislation, the court is holding that their decision in Noem “correctly prohibited legislators from participating in contracts relating to the grants the Legislature had authorized.” So, the unfortunate Castleberry situation would not have been prevented.

End result? I think this is going to open up a number of people to run for the legislature who had been barred or thought they may be barred previously because of how they’re paid, or who pays them.

In speaking with Senate President Pro Temp Lee Schoenbeck about what this means, which it seems this decision is going to take a lot of digesting before we see if it prompts more candidates to run, Senator Schoenbeck was complimentary towards the Governor in this challenging process noting “Governor Noem gets huge credit for taking the heat for leaving vacancies open until this was resolved – and you can quote me on that.”

It sounds as if we’re going to see some legislation coming that may clarify the decision, such as “how does it affect state employees?”  But this decision is sure to bring many changes to the bank from which parties can draw candidates from.

Gov. Noem Thanks Supreme Court for Swift Decision

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, the South Dakota Supreme Court released its advisory opinion on state legislators’ interest in state or county contracts in response to Governor Noem’s request. The advisory opinion can be found here.

“I want to thank the Supreme Court for answering my request to clarify the question of legislative contracts and its diligence in providing a succinct answer, and I want to thank the Attorney General and Legislature for supporting this request,” said Governor Noem. “The court acted swiftly to provide clarity for both the executive and legislative branches, and we are grateful for their work. My team is reviewing this decision and will be announcing legislative appointments very soon.”

##

Attorney General Jackley Releases Statement on South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Legislative Conflicts of Interest

PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Kristi Noem, with the support of the Legislature and the Attorney General, requested the South Dakota Supreme Court to provide further interpretation and clarification of Article III, Section 12 of the South Dakota Constitution, which prohibits legislators from having an interest in certain public contracts.  The Supreme Court has issued a very thorough decision clarifying and detailing the scope of Article III, Section 12.  This clarification will help the Governor in exercising her executive authority to fill legislative vacancies, the Legislature in identifying potential conflicts, the Auditor in authorizing the payment of tax dollars, and the Attorney General in the enforcement of our Constitutional and related laws.

“The Attorney General will continue to enforce our State’s conflict of interest laws as defined by statute and interpreted by the South Dakota Supreme Court.  I appreciate our Supreme Court’s thorough, deliberate and expedited decision, and we are pleased to have the Court’s guidance to assist in enforcing Article III, Section 12 conflicts going forward,” stated Attorney General Jackley.  “To the extent questions remain concerning the application of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Attorney General will continue to be guided by the principle formulated by then-Attorney General Bill Janklow that an actual conflict of interest will exist if a public servant’s financial interest in a public contract influences or affects his or her decision-making in carrying out public duties.”

-30-

Supreme Court Issues Advisory Opinion Regarding State Legislator Interest in Contracts

PIERRE, S.D.— The South Dakota Supreme Court today issued an advisory opinion in the matter of interpretation of the South Dakota Constitution and state laws regarding state legislator interest in state or county contracts.

The opinion follows the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on Jan. 8, 2024, for Gov. Kristi Noem’s request for an advisory opinion on nine individual and fact-specific questions concerning the constitutional restriction upon legislators contracting with the state of South Dakota.

View the advisory opinion at https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/30488ac53a4b.pdf.

UJS Conflict of Interest Ruling by Pat Powers on Scribd

Ending Iran’s Reign of Terror
By Sen. John Thune

Since Hamas attacked Israel in October, the Middle East has grown increasingly unstable. Militia groups have attacked U.S. troops approximately 170 times, injuring a number of Americans and, tragically, killing three soldiers late last month. Houthi militants are regularly attacking commercial shipping and U.S. Navy vessels in the Red Sea, and two Navy SEALs were recently lost at sea off the coast of Somalia during a dangerous nighttime raid to interdict missile parts being shipped to the Houthis.

What these attacks have in common is that the groups committing them are financed, armed, and supported by Iran. This recent campaign of terror is just one part of Iran’s record of driving unrest, instability, and violence in the Middle East that goes back decades. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, operating through a network of proxies across the region. President Biden inherited a maximum pressure campaign intended to keep Iran in check, but throughout his presidency he has yielded to misguided policies that have emboldened the Iranian regime.

President Biden has a history of weakness and appeasement when it comes to Iran. Against the warnings of Republicans and Israel, the Biden administration attempted to revive the flawed nuclear deal negotiated under the Obama administration, which included sweeping sanctions relief. The Biden administration also attempted to unfreeze $6 billion in Iranian assets as part of a deal to free American prisoners, which would have provided Iran with a windfall to fund its proxies. Not to mention the president’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan – on a timeline announced to our enemies – that seriously dented the world’s perception of America’s resolve.

As Iran-backed groups have launched attacks on U.S. troops and American allies, the White House has responded mostly with half-measures and a weak posture that is neither deterring or degrading Iran and its proxies. The United States does not seek war, but we must be willing to assert our national interests, including the safety of our troops and freedom of maritime navigation. While the president has recently taken more forceful action, which was overdue, he is going to have to demonstrate sustained resolve in order to bring an end to Iran’s terror campaign in the Middle East. We cannot allow Iran to control or cut off shipping routes through their Houthi proxies. We cannot allow Iran to continue to enable Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel. And we most certainly cannot tolerate attacks on our troops and the loss of American lives.

These recent attacks are a reminder of the very real dangers our servicemembers face. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude for their bravery and the sacrifices they make to serve our country. I specifically want to commend the men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing that participated in the February 2 retaliatory strikes against 85 targets in Iraq and Syria. The 28th Bomb Wing, which is based at Ellsworth Air Force Base but had a contingent operating out of a base in Texas while our airfield was temporarily closed, flew B-1 bombers to the Middle East on a single marathon flight, taking off from U.S. soil, executing the mission, and returning back to base without interruption.

The ability to generate combat power capable of striking anywhere on the map is a testament to the professionalism and determination of the 28th Bomb Wing’s aircrews and maintainers. And it underscores the importance of preserving this capability now and well into the future. Later this decade, the B-21 Raider will make Ellsworth its first home as it ushers in a new era of American air power. Until that sixth-generation bomber is fielded, we need to continue full support for programs like the B-1.

The United States can’t solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict, but we can be a powerful force for good, if we’re willing to lead. There will always be evil actors in the world who are bent on aggression and violence. Failure to demonstrate strength risks more serious consequences for our national security both now and long into the future.

###

From Twitter:

Joe Biden proved tonight what the Special Counsel said. His mental capacity is clearly diminished.

He claimed that President Sisi (from Egypt) is president of Mexico!

Joe Biden and the Democrat party think the American people are stupid. The events of today make it clear the… pic.twitter.com/aBgzHxbetR

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) February 9, 2024

South Dakota IS a Border State
By Rep. Dusty Johnson
February 9, 2024

Every state is a border state. South Dakota is no exception.

While on a drug trafficking trip, an illegal immigrant and his companion, both from Central America, carjacked and kidnapped an FBI employee outside of Red Shirt in West River. One of the men had re-entered our country after being deported. President Biden’s open border policies have allowed illegal immigrants to enter and re-enter our country and commit heinous crimes. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only time South Dakota has seen crime like this.

The effects of the border crisis are hitting way too close to home for many in South Dakota who are more than 1,000 miles from the southern border. We’ve seen increases in violent crimes, fentanyl overdoses, and illegal immigrants flooding cities that don’t have capacity to house them.

In the past three years, more than 7 million people have crossed the southern border illegally. The situation has worsened almost every month. This is the direct result of having open borders. This is a major problem, but we already know what some solutions are, like Trump’s effective Remain in Mexico policy which I support. If President Biden put it in place today, illegal border crossings would decrease by 70-80 percent almost immediately.

I’ve voted over 70 times for stronger border policies since I came to Congress. I’ve worked on and helped draft legislation that includes some of the strongest border policies ever brought before the House. These policies would stop the flow of illegal immigrants, restart construction of the border wall, hire more Border Patrol agents, and improve technology along the border. I voted in support of the Secure the Border Act, HALT Fentanyl Act, POLICE Act, Schools Not Shelters Act, and more.

I’ve been to the border and know how disastrous the situation is. The Senate and President Biden need to enact these bills the House has passed – and they need to do it soon. You can’t have a safe and secure nation if you don’t have safe and secure borders.

###