Members of the House Redistricting Committee have found an interesting way of countering arguments that they’ve drawn a map that protects their allies. They’re accusing State Senator Lee Schoenbeck of being intelligent:
Senate Pro Temp Lee Schoenbeck — one of the most influential Republican lawmakers — accused House members of maintaining “gerrymandered” boundaries in order to preserve current districts that are favorable to their plans for reelection.
“It looks like someone accidentally spilled something on the map,” he said of one district proposed by the House. “They are making a concerted effort to create or protect districts for people.”
and..
He (State Rep. Drew Dennert) charged that Schoenbeck was “a very intelligent political operative,” who had taken to attacking the House proposal because he was losing support.
Well, darn that intelligent Schoenbeck. I’m sure Dennert is doing his best not to be accused of that same flaw.
Probably the most interesting thing that came up yesterday besides this story was that independent of it, I was contacted by a State House member who was asked his thoughts on how the map looked. They hadn’t been provided the House version, so they called me looking for it.
Just in case it was a fluke, I called another member of the House of Representatives. They hadn’t seen it either.
And we continue to move towards to the special session.
I’m not sure if I would denote the preservation of power to the exclusion of detractors to questionable strategy as “intelligent”.
I suppose there is a test …
Are the proposed changes “America First”?
Are they “South Dakota First”?
Are they “Trust Depositor First”?
The game isn’t over.
The clock doesn’t run out.
The issue isn’t about Schoenbeck or Dennert, but about what’s best for South Dakota.
Tonight at the Watertown meeting we’ll hear from people from NE SD. If the people from District 4 (Grant, Deuel, rural Codington and rural Brookings Counties) show up and express to the committee what they’ve said to me, the committee will get an earful that the Senate plan to divide Watertown in half and join each half to adjacent rural Counties is awful, since it limits limits rural representation. Rural South Dakotans from our area have told me the Senate plan is a nonstarter.
On the other hand, the Grant County Commissioners passed a resolution asking the legislature not to divide Grant County per the House proposal. I’ll provide that to the committee tonight.
Clearly, the committee wont be able to follow the input from each district and each constituency.. However, the sooner we stop talking about personalities and focus on what’s best for the most South Dakotans, the better.
I’ve just looked at the maps. The Dennert map looks like it was drawn by my 10 year old. One of the first rules is don’t divide natural boundaries if possible. In this case, he cuts up Potter, Grant, and a bunch of other counties. It’s really quite bizarre. Just because you’re given the software, doesn’t mean you should use it. This is highly erratic.
I generally like the Senate map. It makes quite a bit of sense with one exception. The split of Watertown seems odd and perhaps a bit of a power grab. The city of Watertown should be one district.
Why are they attacking each other in the press? Give a little get a little.
I’ll come out and say it..
I like Drew and have known him for years and appreciate the work he does in Pierre. HE works hard for Aberdeen…that can’t be said for the others.
WITH THAT SAID….
The map he is proposing really only does one thing…keep Rep Weis in the house. That guy has no business as a legislator. Is Sen Schoenbecks the right answer? Im not sure…
The house maps do seem odd for a lot of the non-metro communities that are split up. I guess that $11k job is worth this effort to keep? hmm…….