Family Heritage Alliance releases 2015 State Legislative Scorecard.

The South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance has released their 2015 Scorecard for both the South Dakota State House and the State Senate.

Several legislators topped the measure at 100%; Senators Cammack, Haggar, Monroe, Omdahl, Otten & Bill Van Gerpen. In the House, Representative Scott Craig, Don Haggar, Steve Haugaard, Latterell, Novstrup, and Qualm all earned 100% as well.

2015 SD Family Heritage Alliance Scorecard

Who found themselves on the other end of things? In the Senate, Angie Buhl-O’Donnell and Larry Tidemann tied at 36.36% as having the low marks for the group’s scorecard in that chamber.

In the House, Peggy Gibson was unmatched at her 11.76% ranking for the low mark for the group in the lower chamber, voting only twice with the group in 17 bills used to rank her vote, and against them the other 15.

In comparison, the lowest ranked House Republicans – Alex Jensen and Dan Dryden supported the group’s position on measures 47.06% of the time, showing far more support than most Democrats, many of which ranked in the thirties (Hawks 38.6, Hawley 33.33) or lower (Karen Soli 29.1).

And you can read more about it here.

What do you think?

22 thoughts on “Family Heritage Alliance releases 2015 State Legislative Scorecard.”

  1. Gary: You are getting played on this one. One of the most liberal members of the RINO Senate Caucus weakened the bill in committee. Jensen offered the amendment as a way to get the bill out of committee and assuage liberal Senator Tiezen, not to strengthen the bill. Actually, the bill was probably gutted by the amendment, as payment for such services are sometimes paid for by the government.

    You’ll notice that the GOP members who voted against concurrence are the most conservative members in the House, and voted for the bill in the original, stronger version of the bill. You are making the constitutional conservatives the bad guys for voting against weakening of the bill?

    Downgrading your greatest allies for opposing the damaging of the legislation by Senator Tiezen is really a disservice.

  2. Deb Peters score is terrible as well.

    She almost lost to Lora Hubbel in 2012 primary (yes Lora Hubbel -by 40 votes) and I think her record on this scorecard probably hurts her even more.

    I respect Dale and the FHA and think this scorecard in particular carries a lot of weight in the next elections primaries.

    I’m also surprised that DiSanto’s score isn’t that different from Haverly’s when so many people talk like they are night and day.

    The senate will need to rectify the high school activities association transgender vote to stop some of these primaries. I think that is one of if not THE wedge issue going into ’16 primary season.

  3. Ahhhh.. the much hated (unless it shows moderates in a favorable light) legislative score cards.

    This one is acceptable because?

  4. Alex Jensen not only scored the lowest among Republicans, he was even beat by a few Democrats! His score reminds me of the conversation about his liberal sounding campaign video ( Now we see a synopsis of his liberal voting record to back up his liberal speech.

    I’ll also comment about the DiSanto – Haverly matchup many are expect in the upcoming primary. One clearly is more photogenic; the other clearly has greater depth. The voters will decide which is more important.

  5. People throughout the state should pay attention to this scorecard and the wider voting records of their senators and representatives. People need to stop voting for candidates simply because the candidate is a Republican. They need to vote for conservative Republicans.

    Senator Soholt is my state senator, and she is a huge disappointment.

    1. How can people vote for a “conservative” Republican if one does not run? The “conservatives” need to put up a candidate – otherwise there is no ground to bitch.

  6. Will the South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance bring back Josh Duggar back for the 2016 Legislative session to share the success of his treatment? That would be fun!

  7. Personally whatever the Family Heritage Center labels as ultra important to them is great and wonderful but not important to me ultimately. Any given SD bill must “qualify” before I vote Yea on it in three measures. First a bill must not demean my moral objective I hold, second it must be supportive of a majority of my district , and third it has to be good for the majority of South Dakotan’s. Simple you may think but the squeaky wheel always gets the grease and earplugs on moral issues are usually needed until some reporter gets the rub.

    1. Curious what your “moral objectives” were that caused you to vote so erratically that Bob Mercer gave you your infamous nickname?

  8. Holy crap Mr. PP your blog is the slowest on the internets!! For the great content except for the meaningless press releases you could rule. Stop the press releases that just waste all but are in the paper anyway. Goodness. Your blog is so slow loading ads. Please stop and I will send you money.

    1. Grudz it is frustrating, isn’t it? Although this is an entertaining forum, I still wish Mr. Powers would spend a few more bucks on a decent hosting plan. But we’ll just have to live with it because beggars can’t be choosers.

Comments are closed.