On the flip side of SB69 – The defeated Hunhoff “party boss” amendment.

Talking about Senate Bill 69 some more, one thing that came up in the discussion yesterday was an amendment by State Senator Bernie Hunhoff.

On the heels of the Brown amendment passing, tightening the placeholder practice of replacing candidates on the ballot, Senator Hunhoff made a partisan attempt to give Democratic Party bosses an avenue to hand-pick candidates for the ballot, bypassing the petition process entirely.

Here’s the Hunhoff amendment:

MOTION: AMEND SB 69  (69oc)

On page 10, after line 19 of the printed bill, insert:
” Section 18. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

If no candidate submits petitions as a candidate for a legislative office from a recognized political party, the central committee members of the political party of the county or counties of that legislative district may elect a candidate, and that candidate may be appointed by the state party chair by the second Tuesday of June.”

Moved by:    Hunhoff (Bernie)
Second by:    Sutton
Action:    Failed by roll call vote. (7-2-0-0).

Read it here. (I think the vote portion of the minutes as noted on-line are in error, btw,)

And here’s the discussion that took place:

What do you think? I tend to agree that having party bosses appoint candidates is a definite negative to the process. Or do you agree with Senator Hunhoff, that it’s tough to find good candidates, so parties need to be able to fill empty slots out of party offices in Sioux Falls en masse?

10 thoughts on “On the flip side of SB69 – The defeated Hunhoff “party boss” amendment.”

  1. I think his comments are indicative of a hierarchal top-down remarkably undemocratic mindset in the Democratic Party.

  2. It’s time people start talking seriously about Brown for Governor. I’m not sure I have seen a more skilled legislator than him in 32 years of watching Pierre politics.

    The only hang up is I doubt he wants the job.

  3. Bad policy but I keep wondering why we should care that the Dems are so willing to shoot themselves. This won’t make them stronger or more viable.

    Regarding Brown, here is what most impresses me about him as a legislator and leader:

    Not only does he quickly dispose of bad legislation, bring a good concept/intent but poorly written/thought out, he does what he can to kill it quickly so attention is spent on working on complete ideas/concepts/legislation. When proponents come unprepared, he doesn’t see why it is everyone else’s job to fix it. Corey Brown is not only a great legislator. He demands his colleagues be better too.

  4. i heard the committee discussion as it happened online. predictably, hunhoff came in and also left the session concerned and depressed about the sad state of democracy in south dakota.

  5. Brown and Soholt were the stars. Sutton was not what I expected.

    This bill and all the reforms were driven by a call to give citizen’s the ability to effectively challenge petitions. This takes time.

    Hunhoff and Sutton were trying to have their cake (challenge petitions) and eat it to (not have to extend the filing and granting of ballot access). This is impossible.

    Thus, when Sutton said “the bill wasn’t ready,” I was disappointed. Its like he wanted to suspend physics or blame someone else when nobody claimed to be powerful enough to suspend physical time constraints. Goofy.

    1. ” The bill wasn’t ready”, sounds like another way of saying ‘Let’s pass this bill then we can read it and find out what’s in it.’ ie: Obamacare. That might work in Washington, when the Dems are in control, but not in South Dakota.

  6. Anonymous 3:57,

    Yes it sounds like it bu the context was a little different. Sutton didn’t think the bill was ready because Krebs couldn’t suspend the laws of physics.

    Sutton has an unrealistic expectation of Krebs.

Comments are closed.