The word out of Pierre recently is that Jason Glodt, whose Marsy’s Law Ballot Measure just made the ballot, is a busy man. However, as of January 1, it’s my understanding that he’s taking a step back from one of his current duties, as interim Director of the SDGOP, to concentrate on that same Marsy’s Law campaign.

And while that may seem to leave the state GOP running a little skinny as we go into 2016, unlike the Dems, it’s not cause to fret.

Much of the groundwork for next year is already laid, with overwhelming numbers of Republican legislators ready to roll. It’s not as if we’re still scrambling to to find people to run for US Senate or anything. (Ann did promise there would be one, so Dems can consider that done, I’m sure. Really, I’m sure.)

The biggest challenge in making the choice for a new GOP ED, the important thing will be to find the right fit for the party.

As I think I’ve mentioned from time to time, and as noted in Governing magazine recently,  state political parties are trying to find their way post Citizens-united. They’re not exactly the sugar daddies that they used to be, with PAC’s and outside groups able to step in and dole out cash.

In my first run with the GOP as a young pup back in 1988, I was in a meeting with Rep. Don Ham representing the House Caucus, and the GOP ED, and we determined who received  $250 donations, $500 donations, and the big one – $1000 donations. (There were two Republicans who trafficked and voted mainly with Democrats who received a token $50.)  And this was a big deal – these were some of the biggest donations these candidates received.

Nowadays, not so much. There’s our advertiser the Rushmore PAC, there’s Mike Rounds’ Peter Norbeck PAC, and many others that are based strictly on ideology who make those party donations back in 1988 seem paltry.

But the GOP Party apparatus still has roles that others can’t fulfill. There’s the organizational structure they provide, as well as a cadre of activists. There’s the historic data the party wields in terms of decades’ worth of voter data. There’s the bully pulpit of speaking for a tremendous number of Republicans in South Dakota, as well as interfacing with the national GOP.

The right person can do all of those things, and far more as they do their best in trying to herd the cats, and keep the peace among various factions of the party.

Right now, there’s such an abundance of Republican officeholders that shaking loose someone with the experience, as well as the administration, communication, and fundraising skills to do the job might take a while.  In other words, many of the good ones are taken. But there are still good ones out there.

And whoever that is, and however long it takes, the important thing is that we have the right person for the job.

From the Argus Leader, apparently Democrat Mayor Mike Huether isn’t getting everything he wants for Christmas, as a handpicked committee is still saying no to giving him permission to raise tourism coffers for pet projects:

Almost immediately the fund was targeted as an opportunity to fund other projects, though. Cindy Huether, the mayor’s wife, inquired about the possibility of using the money to build the Huether Family Match Pointe tennis center. Members of the Convention and Visitors Bureau-Business Improvement District board, which oversees the fund, said the project wasn’t an eligible use for the money.

Huether declined to comment Monday on the review committee’s recommendations, saying he needed more time to review them.

Steve Westra, chief operating officer for hotel owner Hegg Companies and a vocal critic who has questioned the need for the review, said the review committee was an unsuccessful “money grab” by the mayor. He said he appreciates that the committee isn’t recommending capital spending as a legitimate use for the fund.

“(The mayor) has taken several runs with trying to use dollars outside of what it’s intended for,” Westra said. “We get the sense that the mayor sees it as a road block.”

Read it here.

More on the Hawks story from Kelo/AP:

Recently, a conservative blog has commented on the lack of activity from Hawks’ campaign. Hawks says she intends to “do what it takes to be a competitive candidate in this race.”

Read that here.

What’s this “a conservative blog” stuff, Associated Press? It should properly be noted as “THE conservative blog, dakotawarcollege.com.”

Hmph. No love from the Mainstream media for a fellow journalist.

From my e-mail box, it appears that Paula Hawks’ campaign is sending out an e-mail to people tonight about a health scare her family is going through, noting that it’s drawing her attention away from the campaign:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Paula Hawks <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, December 21, 2015
Subject: keeping you informed
To: (REDACTED)

(REDACTED) —

Today, I am writing all of my supporters to share a sensitive topic for my family and I. In early November, my eldest daughter, Ruby, had a serious health scare that drew my attention away from the campaign. I’m happy to announce that after multiple doctor visits and tests, Ruby will be having surgery tomorrow to remove a mass in her neck and thyroid and is expected to have a positive outcome and a full recovery. Following Ruby’s surgery and recovery I am looking forward to devoting 100% of my time and energy to my campaign for U.S. House.

Your support has been overwhelming since I announced my campaign for U.S. House. It is clear you want a change in congressional representation, and I promise to not only work hard to win, but to also make you proud once I earn your vote. I appreciate you all standing with my family during this difficult time. While I am committed to the people of South Dakota and committed to this race, the needs of my children and family are always foremost in my mind.

Best,

Paula

We certainly take her at her word, as any parent would be acutely attuned to and concerned about the health of their child.

But, after such a heartfelt commentary on the health of a loved one, the next paragraph claiming “It is clear you want a change in congressional representation,” just seems to frost over the previous layer of sincerity with partisanship.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs Certifies First Ballot Measure

Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that an Initiated Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to Expand Rights for Crime Victims was validated and certified to be on the November 2016 general election ballot as a ballot measure that the citizens will vote on. The sponsor turned in 53,687 signatures to the Secretary of state’s office. An Initiated Amendment to the Constitution required a minimum of 27,741 signatures from South Dakota registered voters. Once the signatures were delivered to the Secretary of State’s office, a 5% random sampling was conducted. It was determined that 64% of signatures were in good standing.

Secretary Krebs stated that “South Dakota has a long and rich history of citizens taking issues directly to the voters. After serving 10 years in the legislature it is an enjoyable role for me to act as an impartial official in the initiated measure process and ensure that the citizens of South Dakota have a chance to voice their concern in regards to the ballot measures that meet the signature threshold.”

This is the first initiated measure to be approved by Secretary of State. A total of 8 measures were submitted for review. This office will continue the signature validation process of the remaining 7 measures in the order they were submitted to the Secretary of State. A total of 275,000 signatures were submitted among all petitions.

Those looking to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification of a ballot measure have 30 days from the date they are certified.

Challenges to all statewide initiatives and referendums must be brought within 30 days after the petition has been validated and filed by the Secretary of State (SDCL 12-1-13)

1. When does the 30 days start to run?

The 30 days starts to run once the petition is officially filed with the Secretary of State’s Office; the petition is only filed after the Office goes through the petition validation process and determines that the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures to be filed.

2. How will potential challengers know when their 30 days begins to run?

Once the Office makes a determination that there are a sufficient number of signatures such to file the petition, the Secretary of State’s Office will make that information publically available through social media, including twitter updates that are available on the Secretary of State’s website.

3. How is each petition labeled or marked?  How should challengers make arrangements to review the petitions?

The Secretary of State’s Office runs each self-contained petition through a scanner, which places the date, time and a sequential number on each petition. Challengers seeking to “research” the signatures pursuant to SDCL 12-1-13 should contact Kea Warne at the Secretary of State’s Office (605) 773-5003 to make the necessary arrangements.

4. How much does it cost for copies of the petition sheet?

The Secretary of State is required by state law to charge $1.00 per page for copies.  Copies of petitions are two pages due to the petition being printed front and back side which would calculate to a copy fee of $2.00 per petition.  This fee applies to both paper and electronic copies.

5. What order do you process the petitions in?

The Secretary of State’s office will process each petition one at a time, and in the order in which they are received.

6. The petitions are not public documents until after the Secretary of State’s Office has completed the validation process and either filed or rejected the petition.  No copies can be purchased until this process is completed for the particular petition of which copies are being requested.

SOS Website: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-ballot-questions.aspx

#30#

While Dems tried to put a happy face on their upcoming election fortunes in the Argus this weekend, one website went into detail about SDDP’s losing record, and how the wind is blowing against them this election:

Democrats are losing elections across the Mount Rushmore State at a pace not seen since the Eisenhower administration

And…

A six-decade low for Democrats? Indeed, electoral outcomes in recent cycles suggest this is so.
And…

Overall, Republicans have won 446 of 534 statewide elections in South Dakota since statehood (83.5 percent) and Democrats have generally been perennial underdogs over the last 125+ years, with the exception of two stints in the 20th Century in which the party benefited from a strong national partisan wind at its back.

And..

Secondly, the 2014 cycle also saw South Dakota Democrats get blown out in historic fashion with Governor Daugaard’s 45-point victory the largest across the 54 gubernatorial contests conducted since statehood.

The win was an exclamation mark for the GOP, which has made Democrats suffer through 10 consecutive gubernatorial losses – the longest current streak for either party in the nation.

The margin of loss was particularly disappointing for the Democrats who fielded just the fourth all-female gubernatorial ticket in U.S. history out of the more than 40 elections in which a female gubernatorial nominee had a running mate.

Thirdly, in 2010 Democrats did not run a nominee against incumbent John Thune marking the first time in state history the party failed to field a candidate in a U.S. Senate race.

And now Democrats are at risk of doing the same against the popular GOP officeholder in 2016. If that happens, it would be just the second time in U.S. history – and the first time in more than 75 years – that a Republican nominee ran unchallenged by a Democratic opponent for two consecutive cycles. (The last to do so was California’s Hiram Johnson in 1934 and 1940).

Fourthly, the depth of the Democratic Party’s troubles in South Dakota can be seen by its thin bench in the state legislature.

Read the entire article here.

SDDP Chair Ann Tornberg is so far on track to be the first american state political party chair at the helm in 75 years to allow a second bye in a row for a US Senate seat… despite her boastful claims she will have a candidate in that and all 105 legislative races.

Realistically, dems are far past the point where even a serious and legitimate candidate could be successful. Not that they have any at this point.

Just the sheer demands and amount of fundraising they should have been doing over the past six months have left them in an impossible position. No legitimate candidates, if any. And no time left to raise money.

Petition circulation begins in 12 days. Stay tuned to see how many candidates Dems actually run.

This is pretty good, especially airing during SNL last night.

I thought this was pretty telling of some editorial biases at the state’s largest newspaper.

Here’s the online headline posted yesterday of the story talking about Democrats misfortunes in South Dakota:

Fairly mundane.

But then look at the front page splash that landed on doorsteps this morning:

Wait? What? Are those the same two stories?  Seriously, I threw up in my mouth a little when faced with the shameless and naked plug on the front page of the Argus.

I’d like to know who made that headline decision, because we should start to look and see if they had a nice Christmas bonus from the state Democrat Party.

No editorial bias at the Argus. Nope… None at all.

There’s a debate raging in Pennington County on the increase in the wheel tax by the County Commission, and one of the points being brought up in the debate is that a group of RV owners, who call the county home, could wield enough electoral clout to put the increase in wheel taxes down.

That’s raised the ire of State Senator Craig Tieszen, who put them on notice that he plans to introduce a measure to strip them of their South Dakota citizenship:

If Americas Mailbox customers vote in large numbers, they could be the deciding factor in the election that will not only determine whether the county can collect a wheel tax, but also whether Pennington County will qualify for part of a pool of state money for local road and bridge projects.

“Can they carry an election? They could if they wanted to,” said Pennington County Auditor Julie Pearson, who oversees the county’s elections.

That possibility has gained the attention of state Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City. He hopes to pass legislation that would prevent similar situations in the future.

“Something needs to be done about it,” Tieszen said. “It’s reprehensible to think that people who do not live in this state could sway an election.”

Americas Mailbox co-owner Don Humes said his customers bring thousands of dollars in extra revenue to the county and state through vehicle licensing and registration fees, and they deserve a say in ballot issues that affect them financially.

“I’m surprised any politician would tell any citizen of the United States that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote,” Humes said.

and…

That changed following a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of Dunn v. Blumstein. The court ruled that so-called durational residency requirements violated the constitutional right of Americans to travel freely between states without surrendering their ability to vote in federal elections.

and…

Theoretically, the South Dakota Legislature could pass a law imposing 30-day residency requirements — like those imposed in municipal, township and school elections — on special county elections that are not held in conjunction with federal elections.

South Dakota Secretary of State Shantel Krebs, who is the state’s top elections official, said she is open to discussing that kind of legislation with lawmakers. The 2016 legislative session begins five days after Pennington County’s wheel-tax election and continues into March.

Read the entire article here.

I think we can look at this by noting that the Supreme Court has spoken definitively on the topic, because the alternative is to create an even bigger mess.

If we passed legislation to strip those people of a portion of their voting rights, in a November election, would those RVers only be able to vote for President, US Senate, and Congress, leaving the rest of the ballot blank?  And who would be responsible for marking them as Democracy limited on the voter rolls?

Since they will only be able to vote on a portion of the ballot, maybe we could declare them as only 3/5 South Dakotans, while taxing them at 100%.  Just in case someone tries to slip by, maybe we could have them take a South Dakota Literacy test before they vote….

Yeah… that’s the kind of stuff we’re talking about when someone wants to try to limit ballot access, or qualify them as only a portion of a state citizen. It’s not just a little discriminatory.  It’s utterly discriminatory.

What was that thing we fought a little war over? Something about “No taxation without representation…?”  These people, who declare their residency here in a completely legal manner are taxed as South Dakotans, are licensed and register their vehicles as South Dakotans, and considered in census and legislative districting as South Dakotans.

Trying to strip them of a portion of their voting rights because they call South Dakota home, but like to drive an RV around the country is offensive, and should be a measure that’s dead upon arrival in the legislature.