Thune addresses the South Dakota Technology Showcase 

SIOUX FALLS — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today delivered the keynote address at the South Dakota Technology Showcase in Sioux Falls. One of Thune’s top priorities as chairman of the Commerce Committee has been to ensure rural South Dakota isn’t left behind when it comes to the technological advancements that have become such an essential part of everyday life in America.

“At the end of the day, however, it is not going to be politicians and regulators who will determine what our digital future holds,” said Thune. “It will be the entrepreneurs and the engineers and the innovators … You all are the ones making that digital future a reality for South Dakota. 

“The best that the government can do is try to facilitate your success while making sure we are not accidentally standing in the way. I am excited to watch how [the ‘Internet of Things’] and other technologies develop over the coming years, and I am eager to do my small part in fostering their success.”

Earlier this year, Thune introduced the MOBILE NOW Act, a bill that would create an environment where America’s innovators could lay the groundwork for the future of the 5G network and help connect more people across rural South Dakota. Thune’s bill was approved by the Commerce Committee and awaits consideration on the Senate floor.

###

South Dakotans Launch Effort to Oppose Amendment V

Pierre, South Dakota – August 2, 2016 – A group of South Dakotans have organized to oppose Constitutional Amendment V, a measure before South Dakota’s voters in November, saying it would eliminate South Dakota’s primary system and strip voters of the right to know candidates’ party affiliation.

“Amendment V is an anti-transparency measure that would permanently institute a California- style primary system and hide candidates’ party affiliation from South Dakota voters” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of VoteNoOnV.com.

Amendment V would amend South Dakota’s constitution to merge the Republican and Democratic primaries into one primary in which all candidates compete. The top two finishers in that combined primary would then compete in the November general election. This is similar to elections in California.

“Why would we amend our state constitution to try to be more like California, a state mired in political gridlock and debt?” asked Mortenson.

Amendment V would also strip the voters’ right to know candidates’ party affiliation when they review the ballot.

“The chief supporter of this ill-conceived amendment is failed U.S. Senate candidate and liberal Democrat activist Rick Weiland,” Mortenson noted, “and his motivation is clear: change the rules so Democrats can hide their party affiliation from voters in the voting booth.”

The committee advocating for Amendment V has raised 76% of their funds from out-of-state and has raised 92.5% from organizations with undisclosed donors.

“This is a classic case of hide the ball,” says State Senator Corey Brown, “an anti-transparency measure funded by undisclosed, out-of-state money.”

United States Senator John Thune, Governor Dennis Daugaard, and Congresswoman Kristi Noem have all voiced strong opposition to Amendment V and its negative impact on ballot transparency. South Dakota Farm Bureau and the South Dakota Association of Cooperatives have likewise officially opposed the measure.

Voters should visit www.VoteNoOnV.com to find more information.

Democrat US Senate Candidate Jay Williams must be in need of a scheduler. Or a clue. Because his latest press release seems a little silly:

Jay Williams, South Dakota’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate will be speaking to the Yankton Rotary Club this Tuesday, August 2 at the regular noon meeting. This is the first Rotary Club Mr. Williams will address during his campaign. Williams is asking all Rotary clubs in South Dakota to invite him to speak at their clubs.

And..

Because Senator Thune has made appearances at several South Dakota Rotary Clubs during this election cycle, Mr. Williams is asking South Dakota Rotary Clubs to invite him to their meetings where he will speak and answer questions. In this way, Mr. Williams says he can have a virtual debate with Senator Thune by answering questions in the same forum only at different times. These “Rotary Debates” as Mr. Williams calls them will allow voters to see and compare the candidates’ views on the issues facing our nation. Mr. Williams would like to speak to every Rotary Club in South Dakota during the remaining 3 months of this campaign. He requests all South Dakota Rotary Clubs email him….

Read it here.

In most campaigns, they would have a scheduler who sets this kind of thing up. But then again, most campaigns would not have to beg people to call him, as Williams is doing here.

I get a sense of desperation from this release on Williams’ part, since literally he’s down to begging service clubs to call him to speak.

Alas, with his position that “we’re undertaxed in South Dakota, an Income tax would be a good way to go.” and how we need “government subsidies so everyone could put photo-voltaic cells on their roofs,” I don’t think his phone is going to start ringing anytime soon.

From my mailbox, you’re invited…

You are invited to the monthly SD District 8 Conservatives Luncheon to be held this Thursday, August 4th, 11:45AM, at the Second Street Diner, 610 Washington Ave. S., in Madison. This month’s speaker will be Dr. Leslie J. Heinemann, practicing dentist from Flandreau, and one of our two District 8 Representatives. Dr. Heinemann was first elected to his office in 2012 and is on the November 2016 ballot for re-election. His topic is “Medicaid Expansion, Why Not?”

Order off menu, daily special available. For more information call Ray Hedman at 605-270-2991.

Attorney General Jackley and other State Attorneys General Make the Corps of Engineers Aware of the Federal Court’s Injunction of WOTUS

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the he and other State Attorneys General have filed comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to modify Nationwide Permits (NWP) to incorporate provisions of the WOTUS rule.

South Dakota previously joined 12 other states on August 11, 2015, challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS).

“I remain concerned that both the EPA and the CORPS are exceeding their authority granted by Congress. The federal courts have agreed with the Attorneys General and have enjoined the EPA and the CORPS from enforcing a Rule that infringes upon our State authority. Now the CORPS is continuing to create uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation,” stated Jackley.

The Attorneys General argue “It is both premature and unwise to change the NWP to incorporate new regulations that are currently stayed and that may well never be applied.”

The States actively sought postponement of the impending implementation of the WOTUS Rule while the courts could fully address the states’ concerns. On June 29, 2015, thirteen states filed in federal district court in North Dakota asking the court to vacate the new rule and bar the EPA and the COPRS from enforcing the new definition. Several other states have filed in their respective regions. The states contended the new definition of WOTUS violated provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution. Then on July 30, 2015, 31 states requested that the EPA and CORPS delay the effective date of the new Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the CWA.

On August 27, 2015, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction to delay the Rules implementation until the Court has an opportunity to fully review the administrative record. The Court found that it was likely that the EPA violated its grant of authority when it promulgated the Rule and likely failed to comply with the requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Court found the risk of harm to the States is great.

-30-

The United States Attorney’s office has apparently applied for, and received funding for a civil right’s officer who will be responsible, among other things, for enforcing the US Attorney General’s edict on how schools are to treat transgender rights – an edict which had received considerable legislative attention this past session:

That’s changed with Alison Ramsdell’s appointment as the head of the newly-created Civil Rights section. The Flandreau native will lead the office’s efforts to educate the public on civil rights matters and pursue legal action against those who break the law.

and…

The position was added from above, when Attorney General Loretta Lynch released funding for 34 new civil rights prosecutors within the 93 U.S. Attorneys’ offices across the country. Seiler’s office applied for the funding and was awarded it, which made it possible to refocus Ramsdell’s work.

and…

Other efforts include sending follow-up letters from Ramsdell to schools on the federal government’s guidance on transgender rights and setting up an information booth at an LGBT rights gathering in Terrace Park this summer.

Read it all here.

Interesting that the federal government is funding positions to enforce their position on matters that are under litigation, with 23 states now contesting the federal government’s authority to step in and dictate local education policy:

The lawsuit filed Friday is being brought by the states of Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. They argue the Obama administration’s directive was an overreach and a misinterpretation of Title IX.

“The recent action by these two federal agencies to require showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms to be open to both sexes based solely on the student’s choice, circumvents this established law,” Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson wrote in a statement. “It also supersedes local school districts’ authority to address student issues on an individualized, professional and private basis. When a federal agency takes such unilateral action in an attempt to change the meaning of established law, it leaves state and local authorities with no other option than to pursue legal clarity in federal court in order to enforce the rule of law.”

On May 25, another lawsuit was filed against the federal government over the same directive by the states of Texas, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, and Georgia; the governor of Maine; the Arizona Department of Education; and school districts in Texas and Arizona. Kentucky and Mississippi later signed on to that lawsuit.

Read that here.

Given that the US Attorney General’s edict to schools was specifically brought up in the Argus Leader in explanation of what the new US Attorney position will be doing, do you think these new positions represent an escalation of hostilities between Loretta Lynch and the states who are putting up a fight over the School memo?

I have to say that I hadn’t caught this little detail in Slick Rick Weiland’s plan to put taxpayer money into political races. Apparently, Gubernatorial candidates could collect nearly 3/4 of a million dollars to campaign with from Weiland’s welfare for politicians program. All at taxpayer expense:

Voters who want to use the program could give “democracy credits” to political candidates who agree to campaign contribution and spending limits. Each election year, participating legislative candidates could receive up to $15,000 in democracy credit funds, while a gubernatorial candidate could collect up to $700,000, with varying amounts for other offices.

The credits could be given directly to the candidate, to their representative or to the ethics commission. They could be delivered in person, by mail or electronically through a system to be developed by the commission.

Ben Lee, chairman of an opposition group whose partners include Americans For Prosperity-South Dakota, the state Retailers Association and the state Chamber of Commerce and Industry, calls much of the measure “a complicated monstrosity of a muddy mess.”

“Everyone understands the idea of redirecting tax dollars to political campaigns, and they don’t like it,” said Lee…

Read it all here.

$15k for legislative candidates and $700K for a statewide candidate isn’t actually chump change in South Dakota – Those are game changing, and across most of the state, candidates can easily run their entire race at taxpayer’s expense if that’s what they manage to harvest from taxpayers.

And somehow, I don’t think that’s been lost on Slick Rick. To the contrary, I think that’s been known the entire time.

My number four daughter, Sydney, had a busy last week at the annual teenage Republican camp. having served as vice chair of the organization this last year, she decided she was going to run for secretary.

Not only did she win that race, but she found herself named “Female Teenage Republican of the year.”

Needless to say, I’m a pretty proud dad this weekend.

Tuesday, August 2nd marks the deadline for candidates to file papers with the Secretary of State to withdraw from the state legislative races. And as has typically happened in elections past, we’re watching the numbers rack up from the Democrat side of the aisle, as they have a tendency to stuff the ballot with people who never had any intention of running but they wanted someone in there in case they could find someone good.

Who has pulled out so far?

District	Name/office	Party	Misc
4	Fred Deutsch – House	R	Replaced by John Mills
5	Alanna Silvis – House	D	No Replacement yet
5	David G. Johnson – Senate	D	No Replacement yet
9	Holly Boltjes – Senate	D	3rd time as placeholder! No Replacement yet.
11	Mary Claus – House	D	No Replacement yet
12	Betsy Lang – House	D	No Replacement yet
13	Steve Westra – House	R	No Replacement yet
14	Tony Pier – House	D	Replaced by JR LaPlante
18	Matt Stone – Senate	I	No Replacement.
19	Ardon Wek – House	D	No Replacement yet
22	Chuck Groth – Senate	D	No Replacement yet
33	Stephen Eckrich* – House	R	Withdrew before primary, so we’re not counting him.

On the GOP Side, we have two, Deutsch and Westra who have withdrawn due to business reasons (as I’ve heard), one of whom (Deutsch) has already been replaced with an outstanding candidate, John Mills, and the other who will have a replacement in short order.

Probably the biggest disappointment for Republicans is the withdrawal of Matt Stone as an Independent candidate for State Senate in Yankton. Matt was a pretty good GOP candidate, and ran a great race two years ago, and many think Stone would have been extremely competitive against Craig Kennedy in Yankton, instead of the uphill battle he fought against Bernie Hunhoff 2 years ago.

No word why he pulled out this time, but that action gave the race to Kennedy, marking it as an unexpected win in the D column.

(Update. I’m told he had a job opportunity that required he move out of the District. Too bad, as Matt was a good candidate.)

Speaking of the D Column, as of this weekend we have 8 placeholder dems who have withdrawn, with one of them having been replaced by what they’re terming as a “good” candidate, now that they found someone to run in their stead. But the bigger question is how many, and who will join their ranks of the displaced as the candidates scurry to GET OUT this weekend.

We should anticipate several more coming off the ballot, as word is there’s the typical number of placeholders this year.  With a ticket led by Hillary, Jay Williams, and Paula Hawks, there should be little wonder why their candidates are dropping like the proverbial flies. There’s no excitement, and the down ticket races see what’s coming their way – a malaise of substandard candidates who don’t inspire anyone.

In 2014, there were 14 placeholders on the Democrat side of the ticket that had to be replaced, and it looks like they might be on pace to meet that benchmark.

Stay tuned – they’re only going to continue to drop like flies.