Julie Frye-Mueller skipped more days in each of the last two sessions than she was suspended in 2023

Getting back to the quality of Julie Frye Mueller’s representation for a moment, this recent comment was interesting.

Frye-Mueller was suspended three days in 2023 and howled about not being able to provide representation for her district. Then took the next day off.

In 2022, she is said to have missed 5 days of session.

In 2021, she is said to have missed 6 days.

Exactly how is District 30 being shortchanged any more in 2023 with her being out of the Senate than they were in the prior two years when she skipped?  If anything, they’re a day ahead of the game (so far).

24 thoughts on “Julie Frye-Mueller skipped more days in each of the last two sessions than she was suspended in 2023”

  1. You folks in 30 missed out on having an outstanding human being and Military Vet taking care of you in the SD Senate!!!
    Goodwin for the Win in 24!!!

    1. I would certainly hope that your district would exercise some sense. Goodwin and JFM worked hand in hand when they were in the House!! How does that make him better?

    2. Yes, District 30 could have elected George Kotti of Hot Springs. George’s experience was/is top notch. A base commander, preacher, mayor and all around great guy. COVID in 2020 limited his campaign and allowed JFM to slide back in.

  2. The thing I took away from her testimony at the hearing was how she was unable to keep her thoughts straight. We used to call that scatter brained. It was a window into her capabilities and that window is fogged over. She is the 35th least capable senator and it’s not close.

    1. Lieutenant Governor Rhoden: “We are denying a member a longstanding legal principle in the United States of America, due process. We have put the cart ahead of the horse, suspending a member and taking away their ability to serve the people who elected them, before they have had the ability to get the support of a jury of their peers or a board.”

      My understanding is that Julie was suspended from January 26 to February 1, a Thursday through the following Wednesday, and that Senator Schoenbeck went so far as to order her email shut down during that time, while refusing to provide her with any formal statement of the allegations until roughly 24 hours before her hearing.

      My understanding is that Senator Schoenbeck removed Julie from all of her committees on January 25 and still hasn’t reinstated her.

      It isn’t at all clear what the so-called verbal “harassment” of an apparently hypersensitive LRC staffer has to do with Julie’s committee assignments, or why it would require Senator Schoenbeck to strip the citizens of District 30 of constitutional representation for even one day, much to less deprive them of the ability to communicate with their senator for nearly a week, all while refusing to clarify the specific accusations to Julie or to the citizens of South Dakota.

      1. Perhaps she should stay focused on the issues that affect her constituents, instead of giving tips on how to breastfeed… Also, lets not forget the husband twist – and damn, it gets weird really quick.

        1. Should Americans forfeit due process when online trolls call them “weird”?

          The anonymous staffer’s accusations aren’t credible. For starters, she quotes Julie as saying the staffer’s husband could “suck on my breasts” (staffer’s quote marks). What? Julie said “my breasts”? Julie’s breasts? Are the quotes in the statement supposed to be taken seriously? How can they be?

          Then, after Julie’s husband “smiled and nodded” about the suggested breast-sucking, Julie allegedly pointed her finger “with tears in her eyes” and started “repeatedly” ranting, “You can’t vaccinate your child anymore; you can’t vaccinate your child anymore; you can’t vaccinate your child anymore.”

          Was the office door open or closed when Julie “did not knock”? What about when Julie’s husband “left my office” and when Julie “proceeded to call him back in”? What were Julie and the staffer talking about when he allegedly left?

          Julie says vaccines don’t cause down syndrome. Why would she supposedly have told the staffer they do?

          Maybe you should read the staffer’s statement again and try to imagine it really happening. It’s ridiculous.

          1. 33 people found the staffer’s story more credible than Julie and they have known both of them for years.

            1. Maybe they think they know the staffer. Julie apparently thought she knew her too, but the staffer’s testimony openly admits that she doesn’t regard any of the legislators as friends and only acts friendly toward them because she thinks it’s part of the job.

              “I don’t know why my friendliness in my job is being construed that I’m her friend.”


        2. once a business entity is placed in legal jeopardy by actions of one of its agents, the responsible executives in charge of the business entity are compelled to follow the appropriate process to mitigate its liability while investigating the event. upshot: when you trigger a situation fraught with potential liabilities; you are bound to endure the imposition of restrictions, whether you understand what you did or not. remaining anchored to this campaign of denial and self justification takes time and energy away from important business.

          1. Neither the state nor the state legislature is a legal “business entity,” and state senators aren’t “executives in charge” of either one.

            The “appropriate process” here would have been to immediately inform Julie of the accusations and give her a chance to resolve any misunderstandings privately. No one should have been “bound to endure the imposition of restrictions” without even being told what she allegedly did.

            1. in your opinion. my comment was my opinion, formed by observing real-world processes where careless people pay a price for carelessness. it’s how the real world makes us learn things we avoid learning by easier means.

              1. The standard definitions of “business entities” and “executives” aren’t just my opinion, and your opinions about due process are bizarre and anti-American.

                1. I don’t think you defined anything, you just expressed your personal opinion that i’m an unamerican imbecile / liar. reread what you actually wrote and you’ll see that i understood you perfectly.

  3. You probably don’t know or care, but Senator Frye-Mueller’s father went through some serious health issues and passed away in February 2021. Last year her brother-in-law passed away and while I do not recall the dates, both took place during session.
    As one of her constituents and someone who lost his mother and had to make three trips to TX and IL during her illness and burial, I understand the time it takes to tend to the needs of an ill parent and have no problems with ANYONE missing commitments due to deaths in their immediate family. Senator Frye-Mueller is a private person and her family’s health issues were hers and her family’s to deal with.
    I don’t recall reading any complaints for the time Senator Rounds missed in the senate during his wife’s well-publicized illness and there was no need to do so.

  4. Our district, numbered 30, is a fine district populated with many swell fellow, mostly, but a few of them are among the insanest in the Great State of South Dakota.

    That Ms. Frye-Mueller is even sent to Pierre at taxpayer expense is an abomination. When she is skipping out on the legislatures, as she is oft known and proven to do, she is really doing us in the District Numbered 30 a favor. She is insaner than most, a fake overgodder and an anti-fax tin-foil-hat sporter to the N-teenth degree.

    Now, do not let this blogging make you decide that grudznick does or does not not have a crush on her twin sister.

  5. “all we have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us.” – gandalf, “lord of the rings – fellowship of the ring”

  6. The Senator was elected by a majority (slim majority though it was) of voters in her district. Her views seem to be shared by the majority of voters in her district. Her behavior, as inappropriate as it is, seems to meet the approval of a majority of her district. It’s a case of “We have met the enemy and it is us.” You get what you vote for.

    1. correction – ‘shared by a majority of district 30 residents who simply bothered to vote.’ when your hero’s seat is won by barely scraping by in a low-turnout primary, it’s probably not accurate to keep presenting it as a huge mandate. but you’re free to keep doing so because this is the land of freedom.

  7. In a Democracy, a registered voter has a choice not to vote. I had a friend who used to say. “I don’t vote. It just encourages them.” I don’t share that opinion but it is a valid one.

Comments are closed.