Jackley statement on Jurisdiction Over Marijuana in South Dakota and Our Reservations

@SoDakCampaigns

Jurisdiction Over Marijuana in South Dakota and Our Reservations

PIERRE – The possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana is a violation of both federal and state law. As South Dakota’s Attorney General, I respect each Tribes authority to pass laws that govern Indian persons within Indian Country. 

It is equally important to recognize that South Dakota law prohibits the internal and physical possession, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana by: 

(1) all non-Indian persons anywhere in South Dakota including within Indian country; 

(2) all persons, including tribal members, outside of Indian Country. 

These principles are well established and supported under U.S. Supreme Court and South Dakota Supreme Court decisions. 

Since the United States Supreme Court’s 1978 Oliphant opinion, the law has been clear that the inherent criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribe does not extend to non-Indians. As far back as the 1881 McBratney opinion the U.S. Supreme Court found that state courts have jurisdiction over, among other matters, victimless crimes committed by non-Indians within Indian country. 

Furthermore, the South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1977 Winckler opinion found that state courts have jurisdiction over all persons where an element of the crime is committed outside of Indian country. The South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1991 Vandermay opinion reaffirmed that state court jurisdiction exists for criminal conduct by non-Indians with Indian country. 

“I want to encourage Tribal leaders to continue to work with state authorities to better ensure our respective laws are followed, public safety on our roads remains a consideration, and that both Indian and non-Indian persons are not put in harm’s way by the jurisdiction complexities being created by our federal government,” said Attorney General Jackley.
-30-

Press Release: AFP South Dakota Responds To Supreme Court Ruling

@SoDakCampaigns

AFP_SD-logo

AFP South Dakota Responds To Supreme Court Ruling
Court Decision Provides No Relief To The Many Struggling Under Obamacare

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Today, Americans for Prosperity South Dakota released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this morning to uphold the federal Obamacare Exchange in the controversial case, King v. Burwell:

“The Court’s decision today offers no relief to Obamacare’s many victims,” said Americans for Prosperity State Director Ben Lee. “For far too long, Obamacare’s burdensome taxes and mandates have wreaked havoc on American families and businesses. This law was hurting people yesterday, and will continue to do so tomorrow.”

“Obamacare remains wildly unpopular and for good reason: it limits access to care and has sent premiums skyrocketing. Americans for Prosperity South Dakota will continue pressing Congress to provide relief from the law’s expensive mandates, and continue fighting for patient-centered reforms that work.”

A spokesman for the chapter said they planned to direct the public to voice their discontent with the law by signing the petition at www.americansforprosperity.org/burwell.

The national organization also announced plans to launch a significant digital buy with an ad advocating for people’s health over politics, which will reach most major media markets in the United States.

Watch the video here:

Noem Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

@SoDakCampaigns

noem press header Noem Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell:

“I will not be deterred by today’s decision.  The President’s health care law is bad policy – plain and simple.  Thousands of South Dakotans have already suffered the consequences of this law and there’s no sign of those burdens lifting.  Many in our state have lost access to their preferred doctors and health insurance plans.  Others remain caught in the confusion and complexity of the law.  Still others are grappling with the fact that their family’s health costs are scheduled to skyrocket again next year.  South Dakotans deserve better. We will continue to work toward a patient-centered alternative that will finally repeal the President’s health care law and replace it with a health policy that works for American families.”

###

Divided United States Supreme Court Upholds Tax Credits Under Affordable Care Act

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2

Divided United States Supreme Court Upholds Tax Credits Under Affordable Care Act

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a divided decision in King et al. v. Burwell, et.al., upholding section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any exchange under the Act.

“From day one South Dakota challenged the federal takeover of healthcare as infringing upon our individual and state rights. While today’s opinion allows this federal takeover to continue, it highlights the obvious concern with both the U.S. Department of Health and the IRS’ implementation of federal healthcare,” said Jackley.

The Court held the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) permissibly promulgated regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through federal exchanges. The Court found the credits are “necessary for the Federal Exchange to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

A strongly worded dissent criticized the majority opinion, noting that a strict interpretation of the Act would prevent the Act from working as well as hoped, so the Court “rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere”. The Oklahoma District Court held that the ACA does not allow subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. There are 34 states, including South Dakota, who declined to establish Exchanges and two states who failed to timely establish Exchanges for 2014.

Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, which was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and ACA, authorizes federal tax credit subsidies for health insurance coverage that is purchased through an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311” of the ACA. IRS promulgated regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through Exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the ACA.

The last estimate to run a state based exchange was done back in 2011 through the Health Insurance Exchange Task Force. Navigant estimated it would cost South Dakota taxpayers $45,233,699 to implement a hosted exchange and an additional 6 to 8 million in state revenues to sustain the State run Exchange.

-30-

Former Rep. Kathy Tyler’s Pig Poop Protest denied by State Supreme Court.

@SoDakCampaigns

Former State Rep. Kathy Tyler just can’t win. Today, the State Supreme Court handed down a decision in the matter of “Grant County Concerned Citizens v Grant County Board of Adjustment,” in which

Former State Rep. Kathy Tyler (D)
Former State Rep. Kathy Tyler (D)

Tyler, who seemed to act as front person for the group, attempted to throw everything including the kitchen sink (Including digging a well to try to frustrate the application)in an attempt to deny the board of adjustment permitting for a CAFO, or “concentrated animal feeding operation” which was working to set up shop in Grant County just down the road from the former Democratic State Representative.

And in each and every claim in the lawsuit, the State Supreme Court shut Tyler’s group down. Go ahead and read it for yourself:

Grant County – Teton Appeal II 6-25-15

What do you think? Is the problem that people who move out to the country expect it to not smell like the country when a neighbor decides to raise pigs? Our food does need to come from somewhere.

Thune Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

@SoDakCampaigns

thuneheadernew Thune Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressWASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement regarding today’s Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell:

“Obamacare continues to be a disaster for many American families and businesses. Under this law, Americans will continue to pay higher premiums, face an avalanche of regulations, and cope with the loss of their preferred doctors. Obamacare’s ‘top-down’ approach to health care has forced Americans off plans that they liked, hurt job creation, and reduced choices of doctors and hospitals. The Republican-led Senate remains committed to repealing this fundamentally broken law and replacing it with patient-centered reforms that work for the American people.”

 ###

Rounds Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

@SoDakCampaigns

RoundsPressHeader

Rounds Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement after the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) federal subsidies as constitutional:

“Today’s decision doesn’t change the fact that the Affordable Care Act is fatally flawed. From increased insurance costs to website glitches and canceled coverage for millions, this law has hurt our economy and millions of American families. The ACA was a hastily-written law crafted behind closed doors, with little regard for its negative effects on families or on our economy. The result was an unworkable law that is unsustainable, unaffordable and saddled with glitches.”

“South Dakotans want – and deserve – truly patient-centered health care that delivers secure, affordable care and a competitive, open market that encourages innovation. The Affordable Care Act fails on all these fronts. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to repeal and replace this flawed, government-run health care plan. Our goal is to secure affordable services in a competitive market.”

###

The 2018 Sioux Falls Mayoral Hunt

@SoDakCampaigns

You’d think the 2016 elections were all but a foregone conclusion at this point with there being no challengers to John Thune, Kristi Noem or Chris Nelson. (Not that it isn’t, because the Democrats aren’t going to dig anyone up to beat them, if they can get candidates at all.) So, many of us who are in the business of prediction and prognostication are looking ahead to the races in 2018.

Sidestepping the overtly political races at the state level, there is another big race that’s going to be up with an open seat – the “non-partisan” Office of Sioux Falls Mayor. Democratic Mayor Mike Huether, who many people think will be convinced by his inflated ego to run for Governor, will be termed out of office leaving an open seat.

And you can tell that it’s an open seat by the number of people who are rumored to be lining up to run for the office. Already there’s talk of candidate jockeying and jostling behind the scenes taking meetings with each other, and having coffee as they subtly try to convince each other not to bother, as they’d be the better candidate.

So, who is widely rumored to be considering the job?

While this is a non-partisan municipal race, don’t kid yourself. It’s anything but non-partisan, and this has been exacerbated during Huether’s tenure. And the battle lines are often drawn this way with major blocs of voters falling along those lines.

On the Republican side of the coin, three major contenders stick out;

And on the Democratic Side, we have four people rising to the top of contention:

There are other names floating around out there, but none that seem to rise to the level of being taken seriously, or they actively disavow any interest in running, such as former legislator Christine Erickson who is in her first term of office.

How should we look at the current field? On the Republican side, all have their own strengths. Ten Haken would be considered a breath of fresh air; the millennial candidate who could capture the fancy of those looking for a fresh face in politics. Jamison brings experience and name ID in running for the office. And – not to go out on a limb – but at first blush, Pat Costello would likely bring the strongest fundraising acumen.

On the Democrat side, there’s a lot less to get excited about. There’s not a lot of vocal sentiment for Darrin Smith to take over for Huether. In fact, his current position as Huether’s majordomo might kill his chances in the mayoral hunt.

Neither Anderson nor Erpenbach seem to bring any dynamic campaign elements to the race. And any ability of Erpenbach to tap into old Daschle donors would be countered if Hildebrand got into the race.

It’s hard to judge if Hildebrand will commit, as he has instances of talking about running but never moving past talk, such as against Stephanie Herseth. If he does move past talk, Hildebrand might be the strongest contender on the Democratic side. And he’d likely be the most polarizing, with people taking strong sides on everything from everything from his advocacy for Democrats to his personal life.

Here’s where the voting bloc in this non-partisan race who tends to go Republican needs to pay attention.

In 2010, your typical Republicans were faced with a choice of Mike Huether who pretended to run as a Republican businessman type and political gadfly Kermit Staggers. Many in the business community weren’t enamored with Staggers, questioning how he friendly he’d be to business, and voted the other way or stayed home.

And here we are five years later still lamenting the fact.

If Hildebrand is the strongest Democrat by far, and the rest of the “D” side of the equation is full of “not ready for prime-time players,” as they seem to be, Republicans need to be careful about fragmenting that bloc of voters, as that could place things more up in the air than may be comfortable.

It may force Republicans to come together as a group, and do a better job in supporting their candidate than they did 8 years ago, lest there be another 8 years of providing a stage for Democrats in Sioux Falls.

Hawks for House State Leg website taken down.

@SoDakCampaigns

 
It had been up until very recently, but Paula Hawks’ state legislative campaign website has now come down and been placed in a ‘parked’ status as we approach July, a time when it was rumored that she would be announcing for Congress.

Interesting. Especially given that she would be a prohibitively out gunned and outclassed candidate going up against Congresswoman Kristi Noem; a candidate with a million dollars in the bank, and the first South Dakotan serving on the ways and means committee.

Hawks, who won by 7 votes in her own district has never run on the state level, and her only claim to fame has been a public embracing of a state income tax – a favorite proposal of Democrats, but a concept loathed by the states Republican majority voters.

Hang on. It could be a bumpy campaign launch. 

Noem Urges Prompt Consideration of TPA by President, following Senate Passage

@SoDakCampaigns

noem press header

Noem Urges Prompt Consideration of TPA by President, following Senate Passage

TPA brings greater accountability and transparency to trade negotiations, says Congresswoman

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today urged President Obama to promptly sign a bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill following the Senate’s final passage of the legislation this afternoon.  Noem helped the U.S. House of Representatives pass this legislation on June 18.

“95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside our borders, so America limits its growth if we can’t reach them on a level playing field,” said Noem.  “When South Dakota has the opportunity to export goods to countries where the U.S. has a trade agreement, we sell approximately 11.5 times more goods than we would to a country where that relationship hasn’t been established. TPA gives our negotiators the tools necessary to reach a fair deal that can produce those kind of results.  I applaud the U.S. Senate for passing this critical bill and I strongly urge the President to move quickly in signing it.”

TPA allows Congress to help set the rules for trade negotiations and lays out congressional objectives of what a good trade deal looks like for America.  This helps ensure greater transparency throughout the negotiating process by empowering Congress to conduct vigorous oversight and hold the administration accountable.  Additionally, with TPA in place, the general public will have online access to the final version of any trade agreement 60 days before that agreement is sent to Congress.   More information on the authorities granted to Congress and the general public by TPA can be found here.

###