The Crime Victim’s bill of rights petition drive is coming to South Dakota

If you notice by the press release from the AG below, there’s going to be at least one constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that everyone should be able to get behind – The Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights.  If you’re wondering what it is…

Marsy’s Law, the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, is an Amendment to the state’s Constitution and certain Penal Code sections enacted by voters through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election. The Act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole.

Read that here.

I spoke with the measure sponsor, Jason Glodt, whom most elected party officials and activists should know well, about the measure, and why it’s coming to South Dakota. It’s rather serendipitous that this has come about, and very welcome measure, as I’ve written about the problems of restitution in South Dakota before.

Jason tells me that 35 states have crime victim rights measures, but South Dakota is one of 15 that do not. At the same time that constitutional rights protect the rights of citizens, they protect the rights of criminals. What this measure seeks to do is to place the rights of victims on the same footing at the same level.

When it was first passed in California in 2008, it received 53% of the vote. When passed recently in Illinois, it passed with 77%  Ultimately, they have a goal to seek a federal constitutional amendment on equal rights for victims, but in the absence of it, this is a good intermediary step.

What does the measure propose to add to the constitution?

MARSY’S LAW: A SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AFFORD CRIME VICTIMS EQUAL RIGHTS

Section I . That Article VI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota be amended by adding a new section to read as follows:

§29. A victim shall have the following rights, beginning at the time of victimization:

I .The right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity;

2. The right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse;.

3. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused and any person acting on behalf of the accused;

4.The right to have the safety and welfare of the victim and the victim’s family considered when setting bail or making release decisions;

5.The right to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information about the victim, and to be notified of any request for such information or records;

6.The right to privacy, which includes the right to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery  request, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interaction to which the victim consents;

7. The right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of, and to be present at, all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct, including release, plea, sentencing, adjudication and disposition, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated;

8. The right to be promptly notified of any release or escape of the accused;

9.The right to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, adjudication, disposition or parole, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated;

10. The right to confer with the attorney for the government;

11. The right to provide information regarding the impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim and the victim’s family to the individual responsible for conducting any pre-sentence or disposition investigation or compiling any pre-sentence investigation report or plan of disposition, and to have any such information considered in any sentencing or disposition recommendations;

12. The right to receive a copy of any pre-sentence report or plan of disposition, and any other report or record relevant to the exercise of a victim’s right, except for those portions made confidential by law;

13. The right to the prompt return of the victim’s property when no longer needed as evidence in the case;

14. The right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal conduct (And this is long overdue – PP) and as provided by law for all losses suffered as a result of delinquent conduct. All monies and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to the restitution owed to the victim before paying any amounts owed to the government;

15. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings;

16. The right to be informed of the conviction, adjudication, sentence, disposition, place and time of incarceration, detention or other disposition of the offender, any scheduled release date of the offender, and the release of or the escape by the offender from custody;

17.The right to be informed in a timely manner of all post-judgment processes and procedures, to participate in such processes and procedures, to provide information to the release authority to be considered before any release decision is made, and to be notified of any release decision regarding the offender. Any parole authority shall extend the right to be heard to any person harmed by the offender;

18. The right to be informed in a timely manner of clemency and expungement procedures, to provide information to the Governor, the court, any clemency board and other authority in these procedures, and to have that information considered before a clemency or expungement decision is made, and to be notified of such decision in advance of any release of the offender; and

19. The right to be informed of these rights, and to be informed that a victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the victim’s rights. This information shall be made available to the general public and provided to each crime victim in what is referred to as a Marsy’ s Card.

What do you think? Are you ready to get behind and support the victims of crime in South Dakota?

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Ability to Set Statutory Interest Rates for Loans

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Ability to Set Statutory Interest Rates for Loans

Marty JackleyPIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871) and the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.

  1. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tKus_2twEd0%3d&tabid=442

2015 Interest Rates.pdf

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

  1. An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
  2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
  3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
  4. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
  5. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
  6. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
  7. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
  8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
  9. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment to Expand Rights for Crime Victims

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment to Expand Rights for Crime Victims

Marty JackleyPIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871) and the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.

  1. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link: http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VbrXi9zbdGY%3d&tabid=442

(Or read below – PP)

Initiated Measure 2015 Rights for Crime Victims

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

  1. An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
  2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
  3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
  4. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
  5. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
  6. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
  7. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
  8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims

Robot bee lady claims that @MegynKelly is proven to be a GOP Shill because she told Annette Bosworth she lost

Every once in a while, I have to look at stuff I know to be absolutely off the wall nutty.  It’s probably a lot like people driving by a car accident or storm damage, where you want just enough information to go “wow, that’s really bad.”

Well, I did it again. I got my fix of looking at “storm damage bad” in a political sense by going to former Secretary of State Candidate Lori Stacey’s web site.  You remember Lori. She’s the one who thinks that there’s a plot to kill off bees, so they can be replaced by government controlled robot bees.  And today, she’s taking on Megyn Kelly.

People should not be shocked about the outrageous questions posed by Fox News moderators at Thursday night’s prime time debate. The event was more like an evening of multiple-candidate gotcha interviews in prime time rather than a formal presidential debate.

With the enormous backlash brewing against Megyn Kelly which largely stems from her attacks on Donald Trump, some might almost start to feel sorry for her. Well, not so fast. It turns out that this is certainly not the first time Megyn Kelly has sucker-punched a candidate for the Republican establishment.

Back during the 2014 Republican primary in South Dakota, Megyn Kelly played dirty tricks on a US Senate candidate that embarrassed the establishment by miraculously raising more money than the obvious GOP establishment’s pick in the primary.

Read the car accident article here.

Um, what?  Somehow Megyn Kelly played a dirty trick on Annette Bosworth by informing her that she lost? As if all those polls, pundits, and practically everyone else in South Dakota not supporting her weren’t an initial clue?

And according to robot bee lady Lori Stacey, taken alongside the questioning of Donald Trump over some fairly misogynist comments he’s made, it’s somehow proof that she’s in the bag for ‘establishment Republicans?’

There’s a reason why Lori Stacey’s thought processes are “car accident bad.” They lack a basis in credibility.

No one is persecuting Annette Bosworth. It’s all been self-inflicted, as there are consequences for her actions. Same with Donald Trump. When you say inflammatory things, there’s a good chance that you might get burned by them.

And I don’t think either one of them can conjure up an alleged sympathy for the Republican establishment on Megyn Kelly’s part to blame.

They managed to do it all by themselves.

The South Dakota Teacher Shortage crisis? Well, it’s not just us.

You know that Blue Ribbon Task force charged with finding ways to raise teacher pay, and in turn, allowing us to hire more teachers due to a shortage?

The New York Times has an interesting article this morning regarding the teacher shortage. And it’s not just us. It’s a nationwide trend:

Across the country, districts are struggling with shortages of teachers, particularly in math, science and special education — a result of the layoffs of the recession years combined with an improving economy in which fewer people are training to be teachers.

At the same time, a growing number of English-language learners are entering public schools, yet it is increasingly difficult to find bilingual teachers. So schools are looking for applicants everywhere they can — whether out of state or out of country — and wooing candidates earlier and quicker.

Some are even asking prospective teachers to train on the job, hiring novices still studying for their teaching credentials, with little, if any, classroom experience.

Louisville, Ky.; Nashville; Oklahoma City; and Providence, R.I., are among the large urban school districts having trouble finding teachers, according to the Council of the Great City Schools, which represents large urban districts. Just one month before the opening of classes, Charlotte, N.C., was desperately trying to fill 200 vacancies.

Read it all here.

Interesting. The story cites that the teacher shortage is “a result of the layoffs of the recession years combined with an improving economy in which fewer people are training to be teachers.”  That doesn’t alleviate the shortage, but it flies in the face of what some would have you believe about South Dakota.

What’s your take on it?

Iran, the South Dakota legislature, and genuflecting to Obama.

Interesting post by Jon Ellis at the Argus over the weekend which talks about how the Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration (that’s garnered so much disappointment over bowing down to Iran) is going to have an effect on South Dakota law:

Under the plan, the United States would “take appropriate steps” to ensure that state and local governments also lifted any sanctions on Iran. Federal officials would “actively encourage” state and local officials to reflect the change in policy to Iran.

and..

Asked how he would react if he were still governor and the federal government asked South Dakota to remove its sanctions, Rounds said: “Without using any four-letter words, I would say, ‘Sue me.'”

Gov. Dennis Daugaard would take a less combative approach.

Read it here.

As I understand it, the South Dakota bill says that the divestment stays in effect until Iran is removed from the U.S. Department of Defense list of states that sponsor terrorism. Iran is still listed as the leading state sponsor of terrorism…  and deal or no deal, Obama can’t hide the fact that Iran has contributed to the deaths of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama might try to take Iran off the list or just get rid of the list, but either way- the will of the people and our state legislature (and many other state legislatures) are being dismissed by the Obama administration.

The Ellis story had what I would consider “the money quote” coming from one of the Democrat sponsors of the measure,  Peggy Gibson of Huron:

Rep. Peggy Gibson, a Huron Democrat who also helped sponsor the 2010, said she would probably vote to overturn it if asked, albeit reluctantly.

“I would probably support the Obama administration, even though I don’t like it,” she said.

Read it here.

Given that South Dakota is often noted as being the state where Obama polls the lowest, would you consider a Democrat legislator genuflecting and automatically giving deference and support to Obama to be a wise thing, especially with the much maligned Iran agreement?

Are you going to join the fun? AFP’s Defending the American Dream Summit coming in less than 2 weeks!

Have you registered yet?

In less than 2 weeks, on August 21st and 22nd, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and whole pile of other speakers will be addressing the 9th Annual Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit in Columbus, OH.

I’ve got my reservation, and my flight, and as I understand, there’s a great group of South Dakotans going including legislators and recent statewide candidates who want to make sure that the free market continues to thrive in America, and want to enhance their campaigning and organizational skills .

According to the web site for the event:

Americans for Prosperity is thrilled to annually host the Defending the American Dream Summit where free-market champions from across the nation come together for an unforgettable weekend with a shared desire to advance spreading opportunity and economic freedom.

Attendees of the Defending the American Dream Summit will have the opportunity to receive high-level training from experts who can teach how to affect real change for our nation’s future.

Join us in 2015 at the Greater Columbus Convention Center to take part in cutting-edge activist training, become better educated on relevant free-market issues, network with thousands of like-minded activists, and hear from top-tier speakers and panelists.

Read that here.

I’m kind of excited, as I’ll be attending as “media,” and should have opportunities to sit in on interviews and q & a with several of the people who are running as president.

If you think this might be something you’d like to take part in, you owe it to yourself to register today!

US Senator John Thune’s weekly column: The Obama EPA Strikes Again

thuneheadernew John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressThe Obama EPA Strikes Again
By Senator John Thune

If there is one thing for which the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can be counted on, it is the repeated issuance of rules and regulations that stifle growth and make life harder and more costly for American families and businesses. The agency, stocked with a seemingly endless amount of red tape, lived up to its reputation earlier this month when it approved the final rule of the so-called “Clean Power Plan,” which could be more accurately described as a backdoor national energy tax.

This national energy tax is unwelcome news for South Dakota consumers because it will hurt jobs, cause costs to skyrocket, and threaten our grid reliability. South Dakota is an energy-intense state – we have cold winters and hot summers. As a result, South Dakota families spend a high share of their income on energy costs. While consumers across the state are likely to feel the pain from this burdensome new regulation, it is low-income families and seniors living on fixed incomes who will be hit the hardest. Many families are already finding it difficult to make ends meet. Higher energy costs – and the resulting costs that will be added to existing products and services – will only make that struggle more problematic.

The EPA’s rule will require a 32 percent across-the-board reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Such a dramatic rate reduction will target the heart of America’s affordable and reliable coal generation. South Dakota’s state reduction target is 47 percent, which is one of the highest in the country and far exceeds the national average.

For the Big Stone Plant, which is South Dakota’s only major coal-fired electric generating unit and nearing completion of a $384 million environmental upgrade, the dust has yet to settle on existing regulations that the EPA has piled on it, including Regional Haze and Utility MACT. Despite the Big Stone Plant soon becoming one of the cleanest plants in the country, the EPA’s latest set of rules will threaten the plant’s multi-million dollar investment. In order to recoup this investment, it may be forced to pass its costs onto ratepayers.

In January, I wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy calling on the agency to think twice about the impact their D.C.-based rule-making process would have on South Dakotans halfway across the country. I urged Administrator McCarthy to abandon these rules, or at the very least, reconsider South Dakota’s emission reduction target to more accurately reflect our existing energy portfolio and the investments utility companies and ratepayers have already made in efficiency upgrades. Not only did the EPA move forward with these rules anyway, but South Dakota’s emission reduction target actually increased in the final rule.

I have said it before: Rule-makers in Washington’s concrete jungle, whether intentionally or unintentionally, force one-size-fits-all rules that oftentimes have a devastating impact on agriculture producers, homeowners, and small businesses across the country. With its national energy tax, the Obama EPA has struck again. I will continue to do all I can to see that this ill-conceived rule is reversed.

US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: The EPA’s Unfair ‘Sue and Settle’ Tactics

RoundsPressHeader MikeRounds official SenateThe EPA’s Unfair ‘Sue and Settle’ Tactics
By Senator Mike Rounds

Too often, rather than writing and implementing regulations in an open and transparent process, environmental regulations are enacted as a result of citizen suits prompted by environmental activists. This practice is commonly known as “sue-and-settle.” I recently chaired a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee hearing to examine the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) sue-and-settle tactics and the impact they have on our economy and local governments.

Both the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act contain clauses that allow citizens to file citizen suits against a regulatory agency to reassure the agency’s compliance with federal statutes. Often, these citizen suits are being used to perpetuate this sue-and-settle process, which overwhelms regulatory agencies and results in settlement agreements and consent decrees requiring agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline.

It is worrisome that these agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors, with no transparency and little input from the public before a final rule is issued. The parties responsible for implementing the rules, such as states and local governments, are nearly completely cut out of the process. They are not even consulted about the practicalities of the settlement agreement. Even more alarming, an EPW Committee report recently released found evidence of the Obama Administration colluding with environmental groups to advance these cases. This unfair process allows the administration to advance its own policy agenda while circumventing Congress and the entire legislative process.

As a result, sue-and settle techniques are creating expensive, burdensome regulations that cost taxpayers billions of dollars, stifle economic growth and limit job creation. What’s worse is that these rules are being made behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. The American people have no voice in the process. A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the EPA reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards could cost up to $90 billion annually, making it the most expensive regulation in history.

Since October 2014, there have been 88 sue-and-settle cases, 79 of which were launched by environmental groups. This squeezes out the voice of average Americans who deserve a say in the regulations under which we all must live.  I believe our government works best when the public is involved in the decisions that affect their daily lives and agencies work transparently and in good faith. Sue-and-settle practices undermine this concept.

As chairman of the EPW Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, I take seriously my job to hold the EPA and other agencies accountable to the American people. I will continue working to stop the unfair sue-and-settle tactics used by the administration to circumvent Congress and the American people in order to promote their agendas.

###

Congresswoman Noem’s Weekly Column: 190 Bills Passed, But More Work Remains

noem press header kristi noem headshot May 21 2014190 Bills Passed, But More Work Remains
By Rep. Kristi Noem

If you read the headlines, it’s difficult not to get frustrated with what’s happening in our country. Almost every day it seems we open the newspaper or turn on the news or scroll through Facebook to read about a new crisis, more gridlock, or greater dysfunction. It makes you wonder what is going on in this country? That’s how I feel sometimes, anyways.

The good news is, however, we aren’t standing idly by. Step by step, we’re getting things done.

At this point, we’re just over halfway through the year.  Already, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed 190 bills, far more than the historical average of 125 bills by this point.

The legislative process these bills have undergone has been more open too.  Every perspective has had the opportunity to be debated.  In fact, the House of Representatives has considered more than 600 amendments, which is double the historical average.  The result has been a Congress that is more effective, with 29 bills being enacted into law this year – once again, well above the historical average of 21.

Of course, it’s not all about the numbers.  The bills that have become law have been meaningful as well.  The Clay Hunt Act aims to prevent veteran suicides, which happen at a rate of about 22 per day, by giving veterans better access to mental health resources. The USA Freedom Act strictly limits the NSA’s bulk data collection.  The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which I helped author, represents one of the most expansive anti-human trafficking laws this decade.  The Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act shifts the focus toward the quality of care, not the quantity.  And new trade legislation puts strict oversight and accountability restrictions on the administration’s trade negotiations.

Additionally, the House has held dozens of oversight hearings, focusing on everything from the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi to executive overreach.  Together with the Senate, we also passed the first bicameral 10-year balanced budget plan since 2001.

Despite several accomplishments, there are still major issues that must be overcome. In the coming weeks, the House will take up legislation that stops the President’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran.  While I’m cautiously optimistic we have enough votes to get the legislation through both sides of Congress, we continue to work toward achieving a veto-proof majority that can override the President.

Funding for road and bridge repairs expires in October as well, but we have been working on a real, multi-year fix that may include reforms to at least a portion of the tax code.

Other tax reforms – known as tax extenders – are also on the agenda for the last half of the year. The House has already passed a number of these so-called extenders, including a permanent fix to Section 179 – a section of the tax code that is important to many South Dakota ag producers.

While the House has also pushed forward legislation addressing sanctuary cities, the President’s health care law, and immigration, I am doubtful we can find enough common ground with the administration to make responsible changes.  Nonetheless, we’ll keep pushing our ideas forward.

I am continuously striving for a more efficient, effective, and accountable government.  As part of that, I believe it’s my responsibility to show you what has been accomplished, while admitting to the challenges that lay ahead.  There’s a lot of work to be done, but we’re making progress – one step at a time.

###