Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 177 Validated by Secretary of State


 Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 177 Validated by Secretary of State

Pierre, SD – Referendum petitions for Senate Bill 177, “An Act to establish a youth minimum wage.” have been validated and filed with the SD Secretary of State’s office. The referral process required that Senate Bill 177 needed 13,871 signatures in order to be referred to the vote of the citizens of South Dakota in the November 2016 general election.

According to state statute 2-1-16 the Secretary of State’s office is required to perform a 5% random sampling of the signatures submitted. The random sampling process was overseen and reviewed by Secretary of State staff to check the signatures for completeness and to ensure the signatures were registered voters in the county they stated on the petition.  Following the sampling, it was determined that 17,077 signatures were valid.

This referendum petition will be Referred Law 20.


Proposed Weiland measure doomed to fail before it starts. And here’s why!

I was chatting with a politico today about the measure Rick Weiland is sending out to people, when the person on the other end of the line made a statement…. and the proverbial light bulb lit above my head.

There might not be much more use in condemning his ballot measure to force you to register as a lobbyist if you go to testify in front of the PUC because a pipeline is going across your land. You might not like that he wants your property taxes to pay for politicians, but never fear. There’s a strong reason why he might never be able to get the required signatures.

Brevity.    Or more specifically, the lack thereof.

If you recall the draft language of the measure, noting what Slick Rick wants to do to South Dakotans:

Rick Weiland's awful South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT Language 150626 _ With Colors

Note the little thing at the bottom of each page (or at the bottom of the document reader window) regarding the number of pages: 44 of them.  Got it? Yes, 44 pages might not be a joke, but there’s a great punchline. ARSD 5:02:08:07.  Form of initiative petition:

5:02:08:07.  Form of initiative petition. Prior to July 1, 2010, the initiative petition form shall follow the specifications provided in this section that were in effect on December 9, 2009.

The initiative petition shall be in the following form:


WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified voters of the state of South Dakota, petition that the following proposed law be submitted to the voters of the state of South Dakota at the general election on November ____, _____, for their approval or rejection pursuant to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

Attorney General Explanation:
The text of the proposed law is as follows:
Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota.

(Insert the instructions to voters and signature blanks prescribed in § 5:02:08:00.03.)


INSTRUCTIONS TO CIRCULATOR: This section (bold) must (unbold) be completed following circulation and before filing.

Print name of the circulator                 Residence Address                                 City                  State

I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, that I made reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge each person signing the petition is a qualified voter in the county indicated on the signature line, that no state statute regarding petition circulation was knowingly violated, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration.

____________________________________   Signature of Circulator

Sworn to before me this ________ day of _____________, ______.

(Seal)         ___________________________________  Signature of Officer Administering Oath

My Commission Expires _______________

____________________________________  Title of Officer Administering Oath

Why do we care about this?  The petition form as mandated by administrative rule expressly sets forth that immediately after the Attorney General’s explanation, the text of the proposed law must be on the petition. prior to the petitionee’s signatures. As in all 44 pages of the initiated measure.

According to a note I just received from the Secretary of State confirming my suspicion:

Yes, you are correct that a petition sheet shall be self contained.  Even in the case where there is a significant amount of text that still holds true.

The size of the petition sheet can and will vary.  For example, the medical marijuana petition is 13×19 which includes the AG’s title and explanation and full text of the measure and still has 20 signature lines.

Binding of a petition is not allowed.

The medical pot measure might be on a 13×19 sheet of paper, but how large would a petition have to be to manage all 44 pages of Rick Weiland’s gobbledygook, plus have room for signatures, the circulator’s oath attesting that they were the circulator, etcetera and so on and still remain legible?

What will the printing costs be to crank out enough of these oversized mega-petitions to cover 20,000 signatures?   And how are these circulators going to manage what could be a pile of ridiculously over sized sheets of paper?

The 2014 election should have taught Rick Weiland a valuable lesson that might have done him some good in proposing his little measure. That there comes a time when he should just shut up.

It might have helped make what he’s proposing far more manageable.

Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 69 Validated by Secretary of State

Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 69 Validated by Secretary of State

Pierre, SD – Referendum petitions for Senate Bill 69, “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding elections and election petitions” have been validated and filed with the SD Secretary of State’s office. The referral process required that Senate Bill 69 needed 13,871 signatures in order to be referred to the vote of the citizens of South Dakota in the November 2016 general election.

According to state statute 2-1-16 the Secretary of State’s office is required to perform a 5% random sampling of the signatures submitted. The random sampling process was overseen and reviewed by Secretary of State staff to check the signatures for completeness and to ensure the signatures were registered voters in the county they stated on the petition.  Following the sampling, it was determined that 14,179 signatures were valid.

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs stated, “The referral process demonstrates that citizens who are willing to participate and work hard can ensure their voices will have an opportunity to be heard at the ballot box.” 

This referendum petition will be Referred Law 19.


Slick Rick Weiland has ballot measure drafted to limit free speech, fund campaigns with tax dollars, and require a lobbyist badge to argue with the DMV.

There was a message sent out today from Weiland to Drey Samuelson that was copied to a number of lobbyists. Which of course found it’s way to me, because everyone confesses to PP at the SDWC:

From: Rick Weiland [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:17 PM
To: Rick Weiland
Cc: Drey Samuelson
Subject: SD Anti-Corruption Act

I wanted to send along a copy of a ‘close to finish’ draft and outline of a ballot measure that we will be sending to the LRC later in the week.  If you have time and interest, please look over and share with me any final suggestions.  Thank you for your interests and any input you can provide.

pryanAccording to the above e-mail that’s been passed around among lobbyists like a bottle of rotgut among bums seeking warmth over a burning 55 gallon drum, Rick is planning on dropping his “Unconstitutional Measure to limit free speech and have taxpayers fund Democrat Campaigns Act” to the Legislative Research Council later to the LRC in the week.  (He calls it something different, but I’m just being honest.)

Apparently, various forms have been making the rounds among lobbyists over the past week.  This latest revision seems to be among the worst versions.weiland

The act, which according to the author information on the Microsoft Word File comes from the computer of a “pryan.” And according to the review information embedded into the document, the comments in RED print belong to Rick Weiland.

If we’re to believe what we read.

Here’s what Slick Rick is planning to do to South Dakota:

Rick Weiland's awful South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT Language 150626 _ With Colors

KaplanIf you’re just looking for the cliff notes, instead of reading all 40 pages. Here’s the analysis as contained on a Word Document provided to me by the Lobbyist corps authored by an “Alex Kaplan”:

South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT initiative outline

Friday, July 26, 2015


  1. Improve disclosure of lobbyist activity
    1. Require lobbyists to report compensation received for their lobbying efforts. [ 2-12-11]
    2. Increase lobbying disclosure filing dates from once a year to four quarterly reports. [ 2-12-11]
    3. Require lobbyist disclosure to occur online in a machine readable format. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently, scans of handwritten forms frustrate disclosure and put an administrative burden on the secretary of state to input.
  2. Expand the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence state executive, department, or agency action. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently only applies to legislation.
  3. Prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts to legislative and executive branch officials and staff of more than $100 per year, per official. [12-27-49]
  4. Expand revolving door prohibition on compensated lobbying from 1 year to 2 years. Expand covered individuals from elected officers to include appointed officers, agency or division heads, and the highest paid aide, employee, or staff-person reporting to each. [ 2-12-8.2]

Campaign Finance

  1. Reduce contribution limits
    1. Individual giving to a statewide candidate: lower from $4,000 to $1,000. [ 12-27-7]
    2. Individual giving to legislative/county candidate: lower from $1,000 to $500. [ 12-27-8]
    3. Individual giving to political party: lower from $10,000 to $2,000. [ 12-27-9]
    4. Individual/Organization giving to PAC: lower from $10,000 to $2,000. [ 12-27-10]
  2. Impose lower contribution limits for registered lobbyists [ 12-27-10.1]
    1. Lobbyist giving to a statewide candidate: $500.
    2. Lobbyist giving to a legislative/county candidate: $250.
    3. Lobbyist giving to a PAC or political party: $1,000.
  3. Close campaign finance loopholes
    1. Limit number of PACs an individual can create by treating PACs controlled by one individual as one PAC. [ 12-27-10.3]
    2. Create soft money prohibitions to require that all funds given or spent in connection with an election be reported according to SD campaign finance law. [ 12-27-10.2]
    3. Prohibit campaign contributions from being converted to personal use. [ 12-27-13]

Disclosure / Transparency / Public Access

  1. Campaign finance disclosure
    1. Require campaign finance reports to be filed online using computer character input for committees that receive $1,000 or more in a reporting period. [ 12-27-41] Currently, scans of handwritten forms frustrate disclosure and put administrative burden on secretary of state.
    2. Require more frequent reporting of full campaign finance statements. [§ 12-27-22, 24] Currently, filings are made once in February, covering following year, and once before each primary and general election, covering fifteenth day prior to that election.
    3. Require basic online disclosure within 5 business days of contributions in the aggregate of $500 or larger. When contribution is received within 10 days of an election, report within 24 hours. [ 12-27-24.1] Currently, public must wait weeks or months, and often until after an election, to learn who is making significant contributions, especially close to an election.
    4. Require individuals who contribute $500 or more in aggregate to report their employer and occupation. [§ 12-27-11, 24] Currently, no such information required in any situation.
  2. Lobbying disclosure
    1. Require all lobbyist disclosure to be filed online using computer character input (prohibit scans of handwritten forms). Increase public access and reduce administrative burden on secretary of state.
    2. Enhance the public’s access to lobbyist information by requiring bulk download of data in an open format, among other modern technological improvements. [ 2-12-11]
  3. Independent expenditures
    1. Expand disclosure for independent expenditures. [ 12-27-16]
  4. Coordination
    1. Treat expenditures made at the request or suggestion of a candidate, his political committee, or their agents as a contribution for the purposes of reporting and limits. [12-27-10.4]
    2. Treat the financing of republication or distribution of campaign materials prepared by a candidate, his committee, or their agents as a contribution for the purposes of reporting and limits. [12-27-10.4]
    3. Require communications made by political committees or political parties to state whether or not it was authorized or coordinated with any candidate, and to state the name. [ 12-27-15] Currently, the communication need only display name of candidate, political committee, or political party paying for it.
  5. Electronic filing
    1. Require that electronic filing, in all circumstances, mean the online filing of standardized forms that do not use handwriting as input [§ 12-27-41, 41.1]
    2. Ensure that in order to electronically file, committee treasurers need only a common internet browser. Provide training materials for treasurers. Give secretary of state authority to grant filing extensions in extenuating circumstances related to technology. [ 12-27-41.1]
  6. Public access
    1. Ensure that public electronic disclosure of campaign finance information is in an open format, free of charge, platform independent, machine readable, and downloadable in bulk. [ 12-27-41.2]


  1. Establish the South Dakota Ethics Commission (SDEC), a five member body within which no more than two members may be affiliated with the same political party. [ 12-27-48] The SDEC shall have the following authorities and responsibilities:
    1. Implement and administer the Democracy Credit Program.
    2. Hire permanent and contract staff to assist in its duties.
    3. Issue recommendations to public agencies to promote trust in government.
    4. Review all campaign finance and lobbyist filings for compliance.
    5. Investigate probable cause for potential violations of ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying law, and refer matters to attorney general or secretary of state for further action. If attorney general or secretary of state take no action or takes action that the SDEC determines is insufficient, the SDEC may, by a majority vote, seek civil enforcement of the law.
    6. Adopt and publish regulations and advisory opinions.
    7. Report annually to the governor and legislature.
    8. Maintain a telephone hotline and internet portal for the submission of corruption tips.
    9. Maintain a website to educate the public about its role and the Democracy Credit Program, publish its reports and findings, and promote public trust in government.
  2. Prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts to legislative and executive branch officials and staff of more than $100 per year, per official. [12-27-49]

Voter Financing of Elections – the Democracy Credit Program [§ 12-27-47]

  1. Each year, every registered South Dakota voter will be issued two $50 Democracy Credits. They may choose to assign these credits to candidates that have been certified as “Participating Candidates” by the Ethics Commission (see below). When the voter assigns the Democracy Credit, the Ethics Commission shall verify their identity (signature and date of birth) and the eligibility of the candidate they have chosen. Transfer or sale of Democracy Credits is strictly prohibited.
  2. Choosing to become a Participating Candidate is an entirely “opt-in” voluntary decision – candidates may choose to continue to raise money in the normal fashion, but they will not be eligible to collect Democracy Credits. To become a Participating Candidate, candidates for legislative and statewide office must:
    1. 1) Demonstrate that they have initial support by collecting a certain number of small contributions (each contribution must be a minimum of $10 and a maximum of $200 or $400, depending on the office sought) from South Dakota residents, accompanied by the signatures and information of the contributors. The number of these contributions required varies by office sought: 50 for state house, 100 for state senate, 250 for non-governor statewide office, and 500 for governor. [ 12-27-47(5)(c)]
    2. 2) Agree to take part in at least three public debates; agree not to contribution more than $2,000 to their own campaign; and agree only to solicit or accept contributions that are from South Dakota residents and not, in the aggregate, over $200 if they are running for legislative office or $400 if they are running for statewide office. [ 12-27-47(5)(b)].

Note: Because of federal preemption of the regulation of federal candidates, candidates for US Senate and House for South Dakota need not perform the two tasks listed above in order to be eligible to collect Democracy Credits.

 Result: With this system, candidates for statewide and legislative office who demonstrate initial support become eligible to appeal to South Dakota voters in order to win the Democracy Credits each of them holds. These Participating Candidates are allowed to collect contributions other than Democracy Credits, but those contributions must be both small and only from South Dakota residents. The Democracy Credit Program rewards candidates for focusing on listening to and winning the support of South Dakota voters, not big money interests from out of state.

    1. The Program is carefully structured to ensure that Participating Candidates are given the opportunity to collect enough Democracy Credits in order to be financially competitive, but that one candidate cannot dominate the collection of Credits. [§ 12-27-47(6)(c)-(d)].

    2. This structure also helps keeps down the cost of the Program. In fact, while the Program is hard-capped at a maximum cost of $10 per registered voter per year (at current registration levels, $5.27 million – or about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the state’s annual budget), varying participation rates and the multiple tiers of hard cost caps (first by candidate [ 12-27-47(6)(c)], then by total paid to all candidates seeking the same office [§ 12-27-47(6)(d)]) make it unlikely the program will cost even this much. Additionally, Democracy Credit funds unused after the primary election (if the candidate loses) and general election must be returned to the Fund. And if the Democracy Credit Fund is not paid out in its entirety, the amount deposited from the unclaimed property fund the following year will be only the difference necessary to replenish funds.


  1. Automatic inflation adjustment of number parameters throughout act (forthcoming). [12-27-50]

  2. [§12-27-51]

  3. Approval of electors will be required in order to modify a statute enacted by initiative. [ 2-1-21]

  4. Effective dates of certain sections will be added in order to give secretary of state and Ethics Commission time to make administrative changes, form, and put regulations in place. [end of doc]

If you review everything on the main Document, you can tell that this measure if not ready for prime time. In fact, it’s rife with problems.

You know it’s bad when the person is was written for – Slick Rick Weiland – questions the constitutionality of singling out one class of people based on their employment, where he notes “ARE THERE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS SINGLING OUT LOBBYIST ON WHAT THEY CAN GIVE??”

According to his awful act, if I’m up lobbying to help kids with Autism again next year, I’m now considered 1/2 a citizen for campaign purposes, and I can only give half of what everyone else can to candidates.  So, do people not advocate for kids in Pierre if they want to support a campaign?

What utter bullsh*t.

And then there’s his awful plan of taxpayer financed campaigns.   Weiland proposes to reverse the woefully inadequate limits that were amended eight years or so ago.  But don’t worry – While on one of his faces, Weiland wants to severely cap the amount that individuals can give to candidates, on his other face, he wants to have taxpayers pay for campaigns!

We have trouble fixing our roads, and paying for education, but look – here comes a dose of Slick Rick socialism to have government pay for campaigns!

And another big point in Slick Rick’s proposal – described in the summary as “Expand(ing) the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence state executive, department, or agency action. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently only applies to legislation.”  

So, under this definition, if I want to talk the Highway Patrolman out of giving me a ticket, I need to register as a lobbyist?  Or, I need to go explain how a specific law does not apply to an interaction with state government when they disagree, and now I’m forced to register as a lobbyist?

Good lord? How many lobbyists does Slick Rick intend to create? Because that’s a pretty damned broad law.


The other thing that Weiland doesn’t mention is how we’re going to pay for all of this.  Of course, many of the states with some public financing of campaigns are also states that have state income taxes. Which I’m sure if what they’ll be hoping for next when there’s no money to pay for his five million dollar boondoggle.

Without a doubt, this proposed ballot measure would be the worst (as in most awful) ballot measure facing South Dakotans next fall.

A measure of questionable constitutionality that limits free speech, wants your tax dollars to pay for candidates to campaign, and requires a lobbyist badge for almost any interaction to “influence state executive, department, or agency action.”

A good reason to voice a big thumbs down before it is even submitted for proposal.


Attorney General Jackley Joins Western State Attorneys General to Challenge EPA on Waters of the United States

Attorney General Jackley Joins Western State Attorneys General to Challenge EPA on Waters of the United States

Marty JackleyPIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley joined with Attorneys General from twelve other states in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over the EPA’s new rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Approximately 35 States have filed comments in opposition and several other State Attorneys General are similarly filing lawsuits.

“The EPA is overstepping its Congressional authority and seizing rights specifically reserved to the States,” Jackley said. “The EPA is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation.”

In their Complaint, the states contend the new definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) violates provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution.

The States assert that the EPA’s new rule inappropriately broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the States have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management. The States argue that the burdens created by the new EPA requirements on waters and lands are harmful to the States and will negatively affect agriculture economic development.

The new rule greatly expands and brings numerous isolated bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps with the result that landowners will have to seek additional federal permits or face substantial fines and federal criminal enforcement actions.

The States are seeking to have the rule vacated and the EPA and Corps enjoined from enforcing the new definition of WOTUS.

Participating in the filing are the attorneys general from the states of: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Thune, Rounds & Noem note – USDA to Pautre Fire Victims: We’re Not Responsible

USDA to Pautre Fire Victims: We’re Not Responsible

USDA Fails to Acknowledge Negligence and Pay for Damages Resulting From Pautre Fire

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressWASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) today expressed their frustration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), and Office of General Counsel’s (OGC) refusal to determine that FS employees were negligent when they started a prescribed burn in April 2013, which due to extremely dry and windy conditions, burned out of control. The devastating Pautre fire consumed 16,000 acres of standing grass on public and private pasture land and damaged or destroyed fences, bales of forage, buildings, and trees.

As a result of USDA’s refusal to determine negligence, all Pautre fire claims will be denied by FS. However, claimants may file suit against the federal government in U.S. district court within six months of the date they received their determination letters.

“I’m disappointed that the USDA has refused to acknowledge negligence and accept responsibility for the out-of-control Pautre fire that had such a devastating impact on property in northern South Dakota,” said Thune. “USDA’s denial leaves many South Dakota farmers and ranchers – who have already waited more than two years for a USDA decision – with the inability to have their claims resolved any time soon. We must prevent situations like these from occurring in the future, which is why I’ve introduced the Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 2015 that would require a federal agency to timely pay for losses that result from an out-of-control fire that it starts.”

“The impact of the Pautre fire will be felt by South Dakotans for many years to come,” said Rounds. “I MikeRounds official Senateam surprised that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Office of General Counsel have denied responsibility and relief to the South Dakota farmers and ranchers affected by the fire. It is my hope that South Dakotans will still be able to recover their losses through other legal avenues available to them.”

“I have been disappointed by the federal government’s snail-paced decision-making process over the last 26 months, but the USDA’s refusal to take responsibility for the Pautre Fire damages is unbelievable,” said Noem. “Whether the USDA admits it or not, South Dakota farmers and ranchers lost thousands of dollars’ worth of fences, buildings, bales, tree rows, and more as a result of the federal government’s actions. We must make sure disasters like this kristi noem headshot May 21 2014are prevented in the future, but that is going to require the federal government to admit to and reconcile previous mistakes.”

Earlier this month, the delegation wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging the USDA, FS, and OGC to determine negligence and accept responsibility for the fire so victims’ claims could be processed.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides claimants two years from the date of an incident to submit claims against the government. The FTCA generally holds the federal government liable when federal employees commit acts of negligence in the course of their employment.

Thune’s legislation, which was introduced earlier this year, is designed to help prevent reckless prescribed burns, similar to the Pautre and Cold Brook fires. The legislation would require appropriate collaboration between federal and local officials before initiating a prescribed burn on federal lands when fire danger is high.



Everybody Hurts. Colorado’s Experience with Medical Pot.

This morning I’m reading an interesting report on the impact of the legalization of pot in Colorado, and some of the negatives that the South Dakota pro-pot legalization forces don’t really care to discuss in their pursuit of medical marijuana in the state as they ease us towards full legalization.  Did I say some of the negatives? Reading the review of the report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area group, I’m not seeing a lot of positives.

But this isn’t about the overall report. This is about how in Colorado, it seems that there’s a high incidence of pain inflicting the residents of the state.

In the same breath as she calls the AG and police chiefs ignorant, Melissa Mentele, sponsor of the pot legalization measure, promotes her cause with such platitudes as “Our smallest and most vulnerable residents need this medicine… Help us #stoptheseizures.

But the reality is that once it became available in Colorado, using pot for seizures became less than secondary:


Out of 115,467 Colorado residents with medical pot cards, roughly 2% are claiming a need to use it for seizures. And 107,384 claim to need it because of “severe pain.”

Basically, to get their Pot cards, just like the R.E.M. song, Everybody Hurts.

While we’re far fewer in population in South Dakota, I suspect there would be a corresponding proportion of people “reporting pain” in South Dakota to get their pot smoking card.

I’ll have more fun facts to come as I peruse the report for more on the Colorado experience – Such as where they rank on child pot use as a result of their “grand experiment.” (They’re #3 while we’re #46)…


And how many pot labs have blown up recently for the ‘miracle drug’ that they want to bring to a South Dakota neighborhood near you:



Board to make final call on Harney Peak renaming today

After an earlier bout of political correctness, the Board of Geographic Names is making the final decision on renaming Harney Peak today according to KELOLAND:

The South Dakota Board on Geographic Names is making its final recommendation on a proposed name change for Harney Peak in the Black Hills National Forest.
The board is expected to make its final recommendation on Monday at a meeting in Pierre at 1:30 p.m.
The board made a preliminary recommendation in May to change the name to name “Hinhan Kaga.” It’s believed that the phrase translates to “Making of Owls” in English.

Read it all here.

Anyone taking bets after the outrage over their preliminary recommendation?

Why do I think Marty Jackley is getting tired of people invoking his name?

I might find the subject matter slightly humorous, but somehow I think Marty is to the point of wishing people would leave him out of it.

Apparently the nut jobs from Georgia or Florida or wherever they are from are now demanding that Marty Jackley prosecute people for felonies that may not actually exist.

It might be creepy but I’m not exactly sure that it’s a felony.

July 1 can’t get here soon enough.