Category: Uncategorized

Mandatory Drug Tests for Lawmakers Still Alive in Pierre, Headed to Senate Vote

After a similar House bill (HB 1133) was killed in committee Wednesday, another version of a controversial bill requiring mandatory drug testing for South Dakota legislators has now passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is headed for a vote on the Senate floor. The move comes after Attorney General Marty Jackley proposed new, harsher penalties for the use and manufacture of methamphetamine. Representative Tim Goodwin of Rapid City launched the original initiative to subject the state’s lawmaking body to the same standards and expectations given to the general public.

“If lawmakers are going to send people to prison for long periods of time (for drug use and abuse,) we should be clean ourselves,” Goodwin said.

Congressional candidate and Watertown State Senator, Neal Tapio backs the notion and is cosponsoring the new Senate version of the legislation which proposes drug testing lawmakers once after their swearing into office and once near the conclusion of each legislative session in Pierre. Tapio says simple observation shows the conversation has certain members of both houses of the South Dakota legislature squirming noticeably in their seats. Tapio and Goodwin agree simple deduction suggests anyone not backing the measure might have something to hide.

“There’s no reason in the world for members duly elected to the South Dakota legislature, the very body tasked with deciding the penalties and punishments for those who break our state laws on substance abuse, to oppose equal scrutiny of their own personal behavior,” Tapio said. “I would say that when people are so vehemently opposed to this, it leaves people to wonder about what they might be hiding in their own lives in a very hypocritical way,” Tapio said.

If it passes the Senate, the bill would require House Committee passage before a floor vote could happen. House Majority Leader Mark Mickelson, who stringently opposed HB 1133 has the power of committee selection in determining where the drug testing bill would be heard. Tapio says the bill is an opportunity for lawmakers to set a clear example to their constituents about a high standard of personal conduct.

“South Dakota is in dire need of a wider conversation about the impact of drug usage on our people, schools and businesses,” Tapio said. “The state is facing a drug epidemic, resulting in workforce shortages, increased crime rates, increased costs for juvenile and adult criminal justice systems and requests for more jails in our communities. We should set an example as legislators to have a zero tolerance policy for members of this August body.”

The group behind Marsy’s Law has apparently started a social media campaign against Speaker of the South Dakota House Mark Mickelson for his advocacy for a ballot measure to repeal the victim rights measure passed in the 2016 election.

The media campaign leads people to a website where they can sign up to protest against the repeal effort, which you can read here.

We might be leading up to a new ballot measure fight in 2018 over Marsy’s Law. Stay tuned!

From my mailbox:

Join AFP for the free speech fight here.

With the spotlight on them for policies and actions that have brought a bill to the fray, via the Argus Leader, the University of South Dakota is changing policies in free speech as the Board of Regents are set to answer for them in legislative committee:

The incident, as well as shifting free speech policies on South Dakota’s college campuses – USD just updated its policy – suggest to supporters of the bill that an ironclad state law is needed to ensure the First Amendment is protected.

and..

Back at USD, Haraldson said the university’s updated policy expanded free speech. Previously, there were just three places on campus that were considered free speech zones, where groups could demonstrate or hold rallies. That policy went into effect years ago amid concerns that protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, who protested at campuses and military funerals with anti-gay signs, would show up at USD.

Now, under the new policy, the entire campus is open to free speech.

Read it here.

As the bright spotlight of legislative attention is upon them, USD Changed their policies.  But if that’s all it takes to change them, what’s to stop them from changing them back once the heat is off?

A new state law, perhaps?

Noem Pledges: No Tax Increases

Sioux Falls, S.D. – Kristi Noem today signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, making a written commitment to the taxpayers of South Dakota to oppose all tax increases.

“Over the years, I’ve not only opposed tax increases, but successfully fought to deliver one of the largest tax cuts in American history,” said Noem. “This month, taxpayers will see these tax cuts reflected in their paychecks, and for most, that means a pay raise. South Dakota has long been a low-tax state. We are just one of seven states without an income tax. We need to keep it that way. But we also need to fight proposed increases to the state property tax and the state sales tax. As governor, I pledge to veto any and all efforts to increase taxes. You’ve worked hard for your money. The government needs to respect that.”

February marks the first month in which the tax cuts Noem helped negotiate will be reflected in workers’ paychecks. The legislation not only protected taxpayers from a tax increase, but delivered a fairer tax code that is projected to increase the average family’s after-tax income by $4,000. Noem was also a member of the House Taxation Committee while serving in the state legislature.

# # #

The humor website Dakota Posts* is taking on the Campus Free Speech Bill, and the South Dakota Board of Regents’ reaction to it:

Read it all at Dakota Posts!

(* and for those who have asked or insinuated, no, Dakota Posts is not me. I have too many other irons in the fire to start a new website. But they do a good job!)

South Dakota Republican Party Endorses Campus Free Speech Bill

Sioux Falls – The South Dakota Republican Party today announced its support for HB1073, a bill to protect free speech on the campuses of South Dakota’s public universities. HB1073 was filed by GOP Representative Michael Clark after a string of incidents on South Dakota campuses and campuses around the nation where the right to free speech was undermined.

“As the party of freedom, we’re proud to stand up for the right to free speech on campus and against the liberal domination and control of South Dakota’s campuses,” commented South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Dan Lederman.

“The GOP is fighting for free speech rights and to make our campuses genuine marketplaces for ideas, not an echo chamber for liberals,” added Representative Clark.

The South Dakota GOP joins over thirty state legislators, the South Dakota College Republicans, U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem and Attorney General Marty Jackley in supporting the legislation.

Additional information about HB1073 can be found in this news story just published by the Washington Free Beacon.

Morning Consult is back at it again noting the “most popular” politicians in the country, this time our nation’s Governors. And not only are all of the top ten Republicans, South Dakota’s Governor Dennis Daugaard is in their ranks for January of 2018:

Read all about the rankings here.

From January 22nd at the humor Facebook page Dakota Posts:

From today:

I’m not sure you could have make that up.

Hot off the Press, House Bill 1259 is set to eliminate much of the purpose for State Political Party Conventions:

HB1259P by Pat Powers on Scribd

The short version is that it eliminates party nominations for the offices of attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, and public utilities commissioners.

For offices that many candidates struggle to raise $50,000 – $100,000 to run an abbreviated race after the nomination, this could put them on footing against gubernatorial contests in having to gather a couple thousand signatures, and campaigning up to a year or more ahead of time… or does it?

While it takes away the party nomination process, it really doesn’t give anything to replace the nominations with. I’d expect it would be done via petition, but the bill doesn’t really spell that or any process out.

It would be great for Republicans, as it’s doubtful many Dems lacking personal wealth who have to be talked into a race at convention would jump in to running that far ahead of time. But, for both political parties, it would cause a lot of change in their mission and timing.

I suspect Republicans would move to a caucus system ahead of the primary, similar to other states.

But would it be good for the South Dakota? I’m not sure what problem it’s trying to solve.