Today’s new word is “emendation.” Nelson dissent returned for correction.
Remember last week’s Senator Stace Nelson tantrum over the passage of House Bill 1069 in the State Senate? As noted in the legislative journal:
The question being “Shall HB 1069 pass as amended?”
Sen. Nelson rose to a point of order invoking J.R. 12-1 and Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure Section 521, paragraphs 2 and 3.
The President ruled against the Point of Order.
And the roll being called:
Sen. Nelson rose to a point of order invoking Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure Section 522, paragraph 1.
The President ruled against the Point of Order.
Sen. Nelson appealed the ruling of the President.
The ruling of the President was sustained.
Yeas 27, Nays 8, Excused 0, Absent 0 Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Greenfield (Brock); Haverly; Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Kolbeck; Langer; Maher; Monroe; Netherton; Novstrup; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Stalzer; Tapio; Tidemann; White; Wiik; YoungbergNays:
Frerichs; Heinert; Kennedy; Killer; Nelson; Nesiba; Russell; SuttonSo the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
Sens. Nelson and Russell announced their intention to file a letter of dissent and protest pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.
DISSENT AND PROTEST TO PASSAGE OF HB 1069
Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the rulings of the President of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Matthew Michels, in ruling against Senator Nelson’s point of orders that 17 Senate members be excused from voting due to their personal conflict of interest in the legislation to overturn IM22 due to their admitted public record of personal pecuniary interest in a lawsuit to overturn IM22, violating Joint Rule 12-1 and Section 521 (2)(3) & Section 522 (1) of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (enacted as SD Legislative Joint rules via Joint Rule 11-3). Lt. Gov. Michels’ ruling, in the face of such conflict of interests, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, and besmirches the reputation of the South Dakota Senate. Furthermore, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest the passage of House Bill 1069 in that it clearly violates Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution (which 17 Senators acknowledge in section 10 of their lawsuit contesting the mirror image of HB1069, IM22 was unconstitutional for violating this constitutional provision) states: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” Members voted to pass House Bill 1069 knowing that provisions of it contained sections which require citizens to declare their names, address, etc., on campaign material, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled explicitly violates persons’ 1st Amendment rights (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)). We therefore believe that the passage of House Bill 1069 is in contravention of both the United States Constitution, South Dakota’s Constitution, and is therefore null and void. We thus dissent from, and protest against, the erroneous rulings, the unconstitutional aspects of House Bill 1069, and the appearances of improprieties used to pass House Bill 1069. We respectfully request that this dissent and protest be printed in the Senate Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Senator Stace Nelson Senator Lance RussellSens. Sutton and Heinert announced their intention to file a letter of dissent and protest pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.
After attacking his colleagues in the Journal, from there, Senator Nelson clucked around like a rooster, and penned a self-serving and fairly ego-inflated editorial about how he was right, and others were corrupt.
Coming around the following week, on Monday, some of his fellow legislators decided they didn’t exactly agree with his dissenting opinion in the matter. And they sent it back for a correction:
From the Legislative Journal for yesterday’s proceedings:
And you can listen to the non-debatable motion, which was supported by a majority of members of the State Senate, and quickly disposed of.
The full text of the rule reads:
1-10. Dissent against an act or resolution. Any two members of a house may dissent or protest in respectful language against any act or resolution which they think injurious to the public or to any individual and have the reason for their dissent or protest entered upon the journal. However, if an objection is made that the language of the dissent or protest is not respectful, a majority of the house may refer the dissent or protest back to the dissenting or protesting members for emendation.
So, because the language in the dissent was not considered respectful, the dissent has now been sent back to the dissenting members for “emendation,” or as President of the Senate Matt Michels noted, it’s a fancy word for amendment.
And as related to me, using the rule that Nelson invoked to file the dissent in the first place, the referral back to the dissenting members sent Nelson for quite the loop. So much so, that he had even voted for the omnibus water bill.. one of those omnibus bills that he regularly rejects as not being constitutional.
And after session, there were reports of Nelson chewing on the President of the Senate, Senate Secretaries, and even the Executive Director of LRC trying to figure out what happened.
So yesterday’s new word of the day is “emendation.” A new word that Senator Nelson is not going to forget anytime soon.