Attorney General Jackley Joins Other Attorneys General to Protect Religious Freedom

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2

Attorney General Jackley Joins Other Attorneys General to Protect Religious Freedom

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley and 14 other State Attorneys General announced today they have sent a letter to Congressional leaders urging them to take steps to protect the tax-exempt status of nonprofit religious organizations. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. was asked if religious-affiliated institutions could have their tax-exempt status revoked if they opposed same-sex marriage, Verrilli said “it’s certainly going to be an issue.”

“The newly recognized federal constitutional right to same- sex marriage must and can peaceably coexist with other longstanding constitutional rights of freedom of religion and speech. There is no need to infringe upon either individual or religious freedoms in carrying out the directive of the U.S. Supreme Court. As Attorney General I will work to both ensure common sense solutions and vigorously protect the right to freedom of religion,” said Jackley.

The letter states that by stripping tax-exempt status from religious organizations in this way- a severe consequence that could force groups to exit the public square- would be an unprecedented assertion of governmental power over religious exercise. The letter asks Congress to modify the Internal Revenue Code to prevent the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of nonprofit religious organization that disagrees with the decision in Obergefell.

Those signing on to the letter were Attorneys General from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

-30-

Religious Lib Let t 15

AG noting that religious beliefs deserve consideration as well.

@SoDakCampaigns

From KELOland, Attorney General Marty Jackley notes something specific in the argument over same-sex marriage in SD:

Jackley said Thursday that the constitutional right to marry that’s now guaranteed to same-sex couples must coexist with the constitutional right of freedom of religion for county employees.

Read it here.

Coming from the person who would defend the state in a lawsuit, that’s a significant statement.

Legislators preview the 2016 Legislative session’s upcoming bills relating to marriage.

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, it sounds as if there’s a pile of measures coming with regards to how the state interacts with private individuals in the arena of marriage.

County officials apparently count on taxing marriage as revenue, but that’s not going to stop proposals to just take the state out of it:

A Sioux Falls lawmaker who introduced legislation that would have ended state licensing of marriages says he will likely make another run at the issue next year.

and…

Instead of licensing, married couples would submit a certificate of marriage to their county register of deeds. The certificates would come from churches or those who officiated weddings.

and…

County officials originally opposed Haugaard’s bill, in part because they didn’t want to lose revenue.

and…

But an effort to end state licensing of marriages won’t be embraced by all groups that support traditional marriage. Dale Bartscher, the executive director of the Family Heritage Alliance, said he appreciated Haugaard’s thinking on the issue, but ultimately he said his group couldn’t support the bill.

Read it all here.

What do you think? With the recognition of same-sex marriage, is it time for the state to just get out the marriage license business, and let counties serve as a filing agency?

And as noted by Representative Scott Craig in the article, does there need to be “protection provided to government employees – judges and clerks who declined to perform marriages or issue licenses based on First Amendment objections?”

We probably need to look at whether there is an easy way (or any way) to balance our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion against the 14th Amendment rights of equal protection of the law, on which the same-sex marriage rights are based.  (Given the Supreme court’s position, we probably can’t get into a discussion on state’s rights anymore.)

Or is seeking both a fair and equitable balance between religion and rights just wishful thinking that’s never going to happen?

Is this the next battleground? Polygamists seeking licenses too.

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Associated Press:

A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Read it here.

Is this the next fight?

Jackley: Bosworth Sentenced in Election Law Violation Case

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2 Marty Jackley Bosworth Sentenced in Election Law Violation Case

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Annette Bosworth, 43, Sioux Falls, was sentenced to 2 years for each of the 6 counts for offering false or forged instrument for filing and 2 years for each of the 6 counts for perjury. All counts to be suspended with 3 years of probation including 500 hours of community service, cost of prosecution to the County and court cost of $104 for each count.

“A citizen grand jury and jury have determined that Annette Bosworth has violated state election law enacted by our legislature to protect the integrity of our elections in South Dakota. I respect today’s sentence because jail is meant primarily for public safety, not necessarily for people whose conduct has crossed the line of exasperation to the general public,” said Jackley. “I join in the Court’s recognition coming from those that know Dr. Bosworth best, her medical patients, that she is capable of helping them, and I hope that she will now take advantage of this sentence and focus on such an important opportunity.”

On April 5, 2014, the Attorney General’s Office received an affidavit from the South Dakota Secretary of State challenging certain signatures on Bosworth’s nominating petitions. Bosworth was indicted in June 19, 2014, on multiple counts of perjury and filing false election documents for attesting to voter signatures for her nomination petitions for United States Senate while she was out of the country. On May 27, 2015, Bosworth was convicted on all twelve counts by a unanimous jury. The case was investigated by the Division of Criminal Investigation and prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office.
-30-

And the Boz trial is over, pending appeal. Jail sentence suspended; Community service & probation instead.

@SoDakCampaigns

I was taking my dad grocery shopping today, and had the #BozTrial running in the background this afternoon.

I don’t think she did herself any good with that campaign-speech like statement to the court. And that was evidenced with the admonishment the Judge gave her from the bench.  Ultimately, he gave her 2 years on each count to run concurrently. 3 years probation. 500 Hours community service – specifically in South Dakota. No fines.

I don’t think anyone expected jail time, although I thought Judge Brown would give her a token stay just to underline the point on her behavior. But, I don’t think her sentence is a walk in the park either.

What do you think – was this fair?

Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 177 Validated by Secretary of State

@SoDakCampaigns

krebsheader

 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.

#30#

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

@SoDakCampaigns

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:

INITIATIVE PETITION

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.

Title:
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.)

VERIFICATION BY PERSON CIRCULATING PETITION

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

@SoDakCampaigns

krebsheader
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.

#30#