According to Bob Mercer at KELOland, a group of South Dakota state legislators are seeking an opinion from the attorney general to stop a recently announced series of grants to expand rural broadband access in South Dakota.
Several members who opposed the original funding during session are continuing their opposition to broadband expansion now that the Governor is releasing the funds authorized during session. Ironically, several of the members seeking to quash the grants to improve access represent rural areas of South Dakota:
Some legislators want the state attorney general to stop grants Governor Kristi Noem is awarding to upgrade broadband service in parts of rural South Dakota.
and…
They are asking Ravnsborg to issue an official opinion whether the governor needs a special appropriations bill for the $5 million.
Noem pursued the funding through an amendment to the current year’s appropriations bill that lawmakers passed.
and..
House members on the letter who were excused from the vote are Taffy Howard of Rapid City, Julie Frye-Mueller of Rapid City, Steve Livermont of Martin and Sam Marty of Prairie City,
Others House members whose names are on the letter had voted for the bill.
They are Thomas Brunner of Nisland, Drew Dennert of Aberdeen, Chris Johnson of Rapid City, Isaac Latterell of Tea, Tina Mulally of Rapid City, Carl Perry of Aberdeen, Tom Pischke of Dell Rapids and Kaleb Weis of Aberdeen.
Read the entire story, and the entire list of legislators here.
Why would Carl Perry sign on?
Because he got advice from CD (crazy-Dennert)
Why would he listen to Dennert?
Pea=pod
Because he cannot think for himself.
Why are they pitching a fit about this when they voted it into law?
Who is leading this up? It seems odd the Aberdeen house members would be against this.
If you understand the dynamics of the Aberdeen legislators, it makes sense. Novstrup is well seasoned. He did not support, Dennert and Weis are both young, immature, arrogant, and belong to the far-right group that opposes just about everything. And Perry is easily influenced.
two anti-vaxxer, anti-immigrant, anti-growth extremists? what happened up there in A-town?
Weis needs to go.
Dennert is on thin ice. He is lucky he avoids primaries.
Weis needs to finish his little state flag project with the symbol. It is very important but failed to pass the house.
“Novstrup is well seasoned.”
Agree. Good conservative legislator.
According to Wikipedia, the state has been funding telecommunications for 100 years, when what was to become, eventually, SDPB, was started up as a student radio project at USD, in 1919.
Later, SDPB added TV broadcasting, with state and federal funding. Originally this was a matter of civil defense, to expand radio and TV into sparsely populated markets which could not support commercial broadcasting. The entertainment aspects, like Seasame Street, were an afterthought.
The argument that the state has never funded anything like broadband before is silly. It’s all airwaves, progressing from radio to analog TV to digital TV to high speed Internet.
Objecting to this is like saying the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, as modern firearms were not in use in 1791. Do they really want to go there?
Even if one accepts the absurd notion that the state has never funded anything like this before, it seems strange that the opponents can’t figure out that 26-3 and 58-1 easily meet the 2/3 majority vote threshold in both chambers. Is math really that hard? The fact that some of these opponents live in rural areas suggests that rural education is in need of high speed Internet. It’s especially helpful for parents who homeschool. Maybe the opponents are against homeschooling? Do they really want to go there?
What are they thinking?
well said
Anonymous @9:19 pm:
Lance Russell is leading this. The others signed on because he told them it’s unconstitutional, neatly demonstrating why it’s a really good thing he is not the Attorney General.
Why are many of the opponents of the bill from Rapid City, and Western SD?
And Aberdeen
but mostly rapid city.
Why are so many of the opponents to the bill from Western SD and Rapid City?
Because high speed internet access increases property values. Some people need it to work from home, so they won’t live where they can’t get it. So property values go up, and the taxes go up, too.
How come DiSanto and Stacey didn’t sign on?
Anon at 7:56
Nelson and DiSanto are smarter than the others.
That’s a pretty low bar for intelligence.
Nope!
My fifteen colleagues asked the AG to declare the law unconstitutional, but seemingly overlooked the fact that their request would require the AG to violate the constitution. The AG is required by the constitution to defend the laws of our state. What they are requesting is opposite to his constitutionally defined duty. I doubt it will happen.
I agree with Fred. If they would have asked before it was signed it would be one thing, but now I think the AG has to defend it.
Good point, Fred. Russell would have been a lousy AG if he didn’t know that.
Fred, Our request in no way asks the AG to violate the constitution…no one has challenged this law and it is perfectly within our rights and I believe it is our duty to ask for clarification from the AG on this matter of constitutionality…that is what the AG is there for and that is why his office offers official opinions. He may choose not to give one and that’s his right, but we certainly have the right to ask for one, because for some people, the constitution still matters…
The letter states: “we are requesting you address the constitutionality of this budget transfer and stop the disbursement of funds until this matter can be properly addressed…” that is much more than a simple opinion. The first part of that statement is fine, the dicey part is when you ask the AG to stop the disbursement or the funds.
Tinny Dancer, you bring up an interesting point. Does the AG have the power to unilaterally stop the disbursement of funds not under his departments control? Or delay the enactment of a law?
And what if he issue an opinion siding with Rep. Howard? Does he have the power to make a temporary delay permanent? And should he have that power? The answer to the last question is no, he shouldn’t have that power.
Which brings up another quandary. What if the law is challenged in the courts? If the AG issues an opinion stating the law is unconstitutional, it will most likely be challenged and none other than our AG will have to defend the law against an advisory opinion he issued.
The courts should decide these matters as only they have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. I think an AG’s opinion would have been more useful before the law was passed and signed.
Taffy, the AG is the attorney for the state. His constitutional role is to defend the state. If you think he is going to deliver you an opinion contrary to that role, I think you will be waiting a very long time.
Fred Deutsch is right on this. The Attorney General has to defend the laws of the state. The Attorney General can’t, one the one hand, give his opinion that the law is unconstitutional, and then, on the other hand, step into court and defend the law if it is challenged. He would be conflicting himself out of any lawsuit in which he is duty bound to defend the statute.
Constitution > laws of the state
Source: law for dummies or Deutschs in this case. Seems like a mountain out of a mole hill and the legislators are doing their due diligence in making sure we are running a constitutional government. If by some technicalities it is unconstitutional then I’d suspect it would be rectified in a special session or the upcoming with an emergency clause. Better to do it right.
sometimes it feels like some people think they got elected to the high school debate team — not the state legislature!
with no competition in the state this is what we get. A pretty low bar.
just going to leave this here: “Tom Pischke of Dell Rapids”
One of the proud member of the coo-coo caucus.
There you go again with the name calling. Don’t you have anything nice to say don’t waste our time. The best way to remedy this, run for office. Name calling will carry you long way in Pierre! (Sarcasm)
Thank you for your kind words and support, Lee. A group of legislators, who took an oath to uphold our constitution, sincerely believe the constitution was violated and are doing our due diligence to try and get to the bottom of the issue, while trying to avoid a lawsuit…and those are your comments? Thanks:-)…would you like to line us up in front of a firing squad next?
Granted there was a huge public outcry regarding the question of constitutionality (strong dose of sarcasm), I’m assuming this issue was in the clear regarding a potential law suit. In fact, the legislature passed the bill, so the due diligence should/was(?) carried out while the bill went through the process. If there was an actual question of constitutionality, could have been made during session or a private inquiry could have been made to the AG after the fact. But frankly, we all know that that isn’t the actual motivator here.
The comment regarding a firing squad is sooo off base it isn’t even funny. Crying over spilled milk helps absolutely no one.
Let it be known that I’m actually opposed to the rural broadband access funding. The route that these unskilled legislators are taking is almost laughable and shows just how in unqualified they are for their positions.
Sounds like Tina needs to run for office! What’d you think Lee?
The other thing this group of House members have in common is they are all members of a private caucus that meets privately during session to undermine the Republican caucus. This effort by Daffy is likely part of their group’s strategy.
Oh make no doubt there’s private political group in Pierre and your reminded everyday in the “Republican Caucus” behind closed doors how to think! A what every you do it’s clear having a mind of your own is frowned on. And “Anon” why don’t you put your real name out? Or are you part of the “Establishment” that hides behind a keyboard? Really, you stoop so low to name call? Do you know Rep. Howard? She’s a wonderful, smart, hard working woman looking out for her constituents and the citizens of SD. She takes her responsibility very seriously and for you to low your self to the level of Democrat tactics leads me to think you the “Ringer”
Lol, Taffy. The vote in your chamber was 58-1! Don’t “all” legislators swear the oath to defend the Constitution? So what happened to everyone in your group during the vote??? Did they not vote their conscience? It’s funny that now, months after the bill has been signed into law your group thinks it’s unconstitutional??? Bit late, isn’t it Taffy? Why didn’t your group speak out in committee, or on the floor? Of course, not only did your group ‘not’ speak against it when it mattered — when you could have done something — your group supported it! What a train wreck.
She did speak about it in committee
Are you sure she spoke against it in committee? If so, why was she not in committee to vote against it? In fact, if she was so opposed to the bill why did she miss the committee vote (passed 15-0), but also the floor vote (passed 58-1 with only Randolph voting Nea), as well as missing the final vote on the budget. Come to think of it, did anybody miss more votes than Taffy? If this is so important to Taffy, it should be Taffy’s responsibility to be present to vote. She could have expressed her opinion three times to influence the vote but missed all three opportunities. Instead, we’re months down the road and she has the audacity to believe only she and her small band of merry men are upholding the constitution. Taffy, if you care about the constitution, do your job and be PRESENT to vote.
Heidelberger vs Weis 2020
He would have to move to Dist 4
Heidelberger is District 3 and Weis is in 2.
Pat, any knowledge who is the ringleader? What was communicated to other legislators that caused them to sign the letter? And because every political story has two sides, were the legislators given any information from “the other side” that the process was indeed constitutional, perhaps akin to reasonable statements by Anne Beal?
How dare these legislators challenge the excellent work of our first female Governor. Bunch of sexist pigs is what they are. Get out of the way, and let Kristi lead! #GreatestGovernorEver!
Taffy, nobody will ever accuse you of being rational or sane. You can make up all those fake Constitution arguments you want, and at the end of the day, all the sane people will say that’s nuts.
Let me get this straight — this Taffy lady and her cohorts voted for this but are now questioning its constitutionality?
Welcome to the Republican party. It’s about as bad as noem supporting Trump while trying to help farmers. Nothing like creating a problem to be a hero and solve it.
like democrats and racism.
Yes, 10:52 you got that right.
Lee decided he’s the AG now and the only lawyer left in town that can make the right ruling! lol I can’t believe Lee and Fred trash talk Taffy when I wonder what they’ve done to watch the budget besides just going along to get along.Those late night get togethers at the Governors Mansion is more that they can bear! lol Admit it boys you love the attention.
How many of the legislators who are now fighting the constitutionality of this appropriation months after it passed stood up and vocally defended Dusty Johnson when he questioned President Trump’s expansion of executive authority to spend money on the wall when it hadn’t been appropriated for that purpose?
Good point. You’ll find their names on a resolution chastising Dusty. Hypocrisy, it’s DNA issue there
Lee: You prove your depth here on a regular basis. The Emergency Powers Act thwarts you and Dusty’s desire to facilitate illegal immigration. You are just a of never Trumper, plain and simple.
Article XII, Section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution:
“The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one object, and shall require a two-thirds vote of all the members of each branch of the legislature.”
Ask yourself if this statement is clear enough for a person of average intelligence to comprehend and avoid violating? Ignoring the South Dakota Constitution Articles only exacerbates mistrust in public institutions. If democrats conducted themselves in this manner, many of the sycophants on war college would be feigning outrage.
Lee: Please do not type on war college while on the sauce.
The high school debate team weighed in again
I suspect that was Coach Lance weighing in.
Lance was going to be kicked off the ballot, wasn’t he, Lee? Also appreciated your definitive legal analysis on that one, Lee! Give the holier than thou a rest—Taffy is not insane because you say so.
There you go, thinking this is about rural broadband. Wake up call it has nothing to do with where the money is going!
Springer would be another great candidate. When do petitions need to be filed? I’ll bet Fred and Lee could help you get started. LOL
LOL! Lee probably attending a Twins game watching them get beat!
Liz, our Twins were just letting the other teams catch up a little. No more charity now, will whip Tigers today
Oh make no doubt Dusty days are numbered. His time as Chief of Staff for our past Governor now can be used against him. Coming full circle.LOL
Liz, Dusty’s days “are numbered” 1 through 365, except in leap years when he only gets 364. Other than that, he’ll continue to make us South Dakotans proud of his service in DC for many “numbered” YEARS
I heard Stace Nelson is running against him.
Tara, you need to get some anti hallucination medication.
Maybe I am eating the wrong kind of mushrooms.
Grud’s old breakfast pal Lar could help you in that area. Lar is always on a trip.
LOL! You guys are so funny! You gotta love Dusty but his inability to catch the ball at home base reminds me of the Twins! lol
There are 366 days in a leap year.
I just noticed that eight of those names are from large cities or areas that have good internet already. Why are they denying the same to others?
Take a look at Taffy’s campaign page on FB. She has multiple posts on this subject, including the letter to the AG and LRC’s letter to her. Seems to me she is the instigator of this crazed group of legislators.
I think Pat has 900 followers on this blog. Pretty much tells the tale of who Pat works for. To bad, but not surprising, you just can make this up, I’m gonna share Pat’s page so the other 99.9 of Republican citizens see how issues are handled when Republican legislators try to do their job. Funny stuff! How dare anyone challenge the Kings and Queens because the small ones desperately need invited to court. lol
Lee and Fred you ought to be ashamed for allowing anonymous keyboards (thought, do keyboards have brains?) trash talking fellow Republican colleague. Pretty unprofessional if I say so myself.
What’s the old saying, :What goes around comes around” something like that! lol
Okay Liz, you win. “All you anonymous trash talkers, knock it off.”
Feel better now Liz?
And no trash talking my Tigers!
Fred, you can’t catch the cockroach in the light! Their only visible at night slithering through the box of Captain Crunch! LOL
“All you anonymous trash talkers, knock it off.” In your dreams.
Hiding behind support for the state Constitution, these legislators are firmly opposed to both rural public education and homeschooling, because both will use the resources available on the Internet.
They are opposed to rural healthcare, because they don’t want healthcare providers to teleconference. Somebody has a funny looking EKG in your outreach clinic? Too bad your connection to a cardiologist dropped and you’ll have to wait a while to get it back,
They are opposed to rural residents getting access to real time weather maps so they can see what’s coming towards them.
They are opposed to State extension service field agents being able to communicate with anybody, out in those places where cell phones don’t work.
They are opposed to residents being able to access the websites of state offices, listen to legislative podcasts, stuff like that.
And they are opposed to people working from home.
I’m sure there are more reasons they have for why the state government should not be invested in keeping people connected, but for now, they want to say it’s all about upholding the state constitution and not spending money improving education, saving lives, making state government services more efficient, or improving business opportunities.
Anne, I hope you didn’t inadvertently miss Liz May’s comment up thread that the issue in question has nothing whatsoever to do with rural broadband, or I might add with anything you have listed in your comments.
Hint: G Bill
Hint–this money was not in the G Bill, but another supplemental bill to be accurate
Chip, Anne isn’t worthy of explanatory comment. She cannot grasp it as she is not playing with a full deck. Viciousness via loose cannon is her substitute for intellect. Her comments are self defeating. Don’t waste your time.
This blog is so much more fun when the crazies and former crazies contribute!
Hint: Chip, I’m talking about you!
At least us “Crazies” can put our name to the comment ANON! LOL
ever think that it is done to just bother you holier than thou 4th place Liz
Calling Chip and Taffy names reveals the strength of your argument and abilities. You need to up your game, anon.
If Trump can give names to politicos, so can I. Consider it a form of endearment.
Chip Dip
Dizzy Lizzy
Trump’s nicknames are cleaver. Yours are name-calling. Big difference is you show your juvenile ignorance. Grow up.
The difference between Trump and “ANON” Trump doesn’t hide behind a keyboard! BOK BOK BOK BOK! LOL
Well the difference between you and Trump is he is not a coward like you. He puts his name on it.
Let’s attempt to keep it on topic.
It would be a lot easier to stay on topic Pat if your blog required names/comments not to mention more creditability. Are you sure Democrats haven’t infiltrated your site? If the purpose of this web page is to promote and support Republican principals and Republicans in general then you really need to stop allowing the malicious attacks perpetrated by anonymous sources.
Considering you only ever attack Republicans what should we call you?
If it is not credible, why do you pay so much attention to it?
Thank you for your advice on how to run a ‘creditable’ website.
I’m sorry if the anonymous commenters upset you, however, I have no plans to require names in the immediate future.
So if they upset you, when you get to a comment where you don’t know their name, you should avert your eyes when you get to those scurrilous words.
i’m considering legally changing my name to enquirer. or HaL. good rural broadband might make that process smoother.
Then I have to assume that your blog is used to discredit anyone that challenges the status quo and further shows blatant disregard for productive debate on the principals of the Republican platform let alone inform citizens on important matters regarding their tax dollars. If further cast a dark shadow over anyone that advertises with you and brings into question their motive.
That’s a lot of assumption, simply based on the fact I allow people to comment anonymously.
Should I therefore assume that you are actively engaged in attacking Republicans, because you formed a caucus to compete against them?
http://dakotawarcollege.com/sen-stace-nelson-and-a-couple-others-form-conservative-caucus-based-on-cherry-picked-scorecard/
Based on your own logic, that certainly casts a dark shadow over anyone that associates with you. (You might want to check whether you have been infiltrated by Democrats.)
More “Fake News” Pat. The group you’re referring to were a working group open to anyone. It was you and others that felt threatened by independent thinking that made it a “Private Caucus” trying to discredit the individuals working for open and transparent government. So maybe Pat it would be beneficial for you to go directly to the source before reporting false information. Of course then you wouldn’t be able to allow for anonymous cover. Last time I checked we’re all on the same side of promoting Republican principals, but then again maybe this blog isn’t truly about that, maybe it’s the exact opposite. I hope not….
So, it’s fake news, despite the fact you had put your name to a press release declaring you wanted to “stand apart” from the GOP caucus? Got it.
Good luck with that. It’s worked well for you so far.
“Their opposition to broadband expansion” doesn’t get more fake than that. You know it has nothing to do with the expenditure and all to do with circumventing the constitution, but of course reporting miss information is what your advertisers pay for.
Well, that’s your opinion. The rest of us recognize it for what it is.
And it appears your PAC sponsors pay you to attack the GOP, since that’s what the entire purpose of your competing caucus is.
Liz May was a great Conservative Legislator…..South Dakota’s loss. Look you you have now. 2 Democrats.
who