AFP South Dakota Statement on Senate Passage of the Keystone Pipeline

@SoDakCampaigns

AFP South Dakota Statement on Senate Passage of the Keystone Pipeline

President’s Attempt to Stop Keystone Running on Empty

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Americans for Prosperity South Dakota State Director Ben Lee released the following statement upon Senate approval of the Keystone Pipeline:

“We congratulate Senators Thune and Rounds on taking bold action to approve the Keystone Pipeline. After years of delays and obstruction led by President Obama – the Left has finally run out of excuses. The American people have spoken clearly: now is the time to build the Keystone Pipeline. This common sense investment will provide relief for middle-class families, create 42,000 good-paying jobs and provide secure energy for the Nation’s future. We urge the President to put aside partisan differences and swiftly sign this bill into law,” Lee said.

Thune: Following Senate Passage of Keystone XL, All Eyes on the President

@SoDakCampaigns

Following Senate Passage of Keystone XL, All Eyes on the President

“This is the kind of common-sense legislating the American people hired America’s New Congress to do.”

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressWASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement on the Senate’s bipartisan passage of a bill that would approve the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline:

“Keystone XL would support thousands of jobs and invest billions of dollars in the economy at no expense to taxpayers. This is the kind of common-sense legislating the American people hired America’s New Congress to do. The president is out of excuses. He should support this project and join Republicans in getting Washington working again for the American people.”

###

Press Release: Senate Passes Keystone XL Legislation

@SoDakCampaigns

Senate Passes Keystone XL Legislation

MikeRounds official SenateWASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) voted today to approve legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline. It passed the Senate 62-36.

“The Administration’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is long overdue,” said Rounds. “I’m pleased Congress took matters into its own hands and we were able to come together in a bipartisan manner to finally get this accomplished,” said Rounds. “This project will create jobs for hard-working South Dakotans and free up our railways to get more of our farmers’ grain to market.  It’s a commonsense piece of legislation that the President should sign into law as soon as it hits his desk.”

The Keystone XL pipeline will run through South Dakota and connect with an existing pipeline in Nebraska, carrying nearly 830,000 barrels of crude oil to U.S. refineries along the gulf coast. Rounds is one of 60 cosponsors to the legislation.

 ###

‘Friend-of-the-felon’ voting bill to be heard tomorrow. Let’s “just say no.”

@SoDakCampaigns

A promised turkey of a measure has landed upon the legislature.

A bill to restore voting rights to convicted felons before the completion of their sentence from State Senator Craig Tieszen has been introduced in the State Senate, despite earlier promised opposition from the Secretary of State.   The measure, Senate Bill 112 primed by Tieszen in the Senate and Rep. Steve Hickey in the House, would walk back a reform measure passed in 2012 which cleared up a confusing multi-tiered system which left many felons unsure if they could vote or not.

The measure is scheduled to be heard in Senate State Affairs at 10 AM tomorrow morning in Room 414.

SB 112 changes the law, basing it on whether the felon is imprisoned or not, as opposed to it being based on a convicted felon’s completion of sentence. As noted in the Argus article, Tieszen believes it’s the right thing to do:

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, says he plans push for the bill this legislative session. Tieszen says giving felons the chance to be good citizen by allowing them to vote is the right thing to do.

As noted earlier this month in an article by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the person in charge of South Dakota elections, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs ,earlier voiced opposition to the measure, as well as the person who introduced the 2012 measure, Gene Abdallah:

“I feel they should complete their entire sentence, and at this time I don’t see supporting his legislation,” said Shantel Krebs, South Dakota secretary of state. “I think there’s are a lot of questions out there such as, ‘What if a person violates their parole?’ “

Gene Abdallah, a former U.S. marshal and state lawmaker who was the prime sponsor of the revision to felony voting rights that passed in 2012, also opposed Tieszen’s proposed bill.

“I think they should wait until after their parole and after their sentence is finished,” Abdallah said.

Read it here.

Krebs brings up an excellent point about parole violators confusing the system, which would require even more of a data exchange between courts and the Secretary of State data systems than exist now.

And I can’t help but give strong deference to the original point made by the sponsor – “they should wait until after their parole and after their sentence is finished.”   When someone commits a crime, in many instances there are crime victims. Part of the process is the state obtaining justice on their behalf, and that’s done through the sentence being imposed. Justice is far from perfect, in fact, it’s quite imperfect, and rarely in proportion to the harm.

When you see these types of bills, as they talk about restoring things to those poor, poor convicted felons, I can’t help but consider that the people introducing such measures are giving far more deference to the criminals who commit the crimes, than the victims.

I do think there’s a place to give felons the chance to be good citizens. It’s by example. The example should be to complete the sentence handed down by the courts. They earned it, so they should own it. And by successfully completing it while remaining a good citizen, they’ll have earned their right to vote back.

And only then.

Senate pushing forward on Keystone, despite President. Progress – a nice change of pace.

@SoDakCampaigns

From USA Today:

After more than two weeks of debate on numerous amendments, the Senate cleared a key hurdle with a 62-35 vote Thursday to complete work on legislation approving the north-south pipeline for Canadian oil that Republicans advocated as a way to create thousands of U.S. jobs. The vote exceeded the 60-vote threshold needed to cut off additional debate on the bill and set up the Senate to pass the bill later in the day. But the tally was short of the 67 votes the Senate would need to override a presidential veto.

Nine Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus to support the bill: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged his colleagues to pass the measure. “Constructing Keystone would pump billions into our economy. It would support thousands of good American jobs,” he said. “And as the president’s own State Department has indicated, it would do this with minimal environmental impact.”

Read it here.

What’s that sound I hear? Progress.  Progress you didn’t hear or see anything of under Democrat rule in the US Senate.   For better or worse, up or down, votes are happening, especially on Keystone, a project long sandbagged by the administration.

Progress – It’s a nice change of pace.

On the flip side of SB69 – The defeated Hunhoff “party boss” amendment.

@SoDakCampaigns

Talking about Senate Bill 69 some more, one thing that came up in the discussion yesterday was an amendment by State Senator Bernie Hunhoff.

On the heels of the Brown amendment passing, tightening the placeholder practice of replacing candidates on the ballot, Senator Hunhoff made a partisan attempt to give Democratic Party bosses an avenue to hand-pick candidates for the ballot, bypassing the petition process entirely.

Here’s the Hunhoff amendment:

MOTION: AMEND SB 69  (69oc)

On page 10, after line 19 of the printed bill, insert:
” Section 18. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

If no candidate submits petitions as a candidate for a legislative office from a recognized political party, the central committee members of the political party of the county or counties of that legislative district may elect a candidate, and that candidate may be appointed by the state party chair by the second Tuesday of June.”

Moved by:    Hunhoff (Bernie)
Second by:    Sutton
Action:    Failed by roll call vote. (7-2-0-0).

Read it here. (I think the vote portion of the minutes as noted on-line are in error, btw,)

And here’s the discussion that took place:

What do you think? I tend to agree that having party bosses appoint candidates is a definite negative to the process. Or do you agree with Senator Hunhoff, that it’s tough to find good candidates, so parties need to be able to fill empty slots out of party offices in Sioux Falls en masse?

Senate Bill 69 amended to underline the fact that oaths matter.

@SoDakCampaigns

Remember Annette Bosworth? (How can you forget!)    Her indictment and prosecution are based on the fact she is accused of violating her sworn statement that she circulated and witnessed several petition signatures.

boz31“I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed line, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration.”

That sworn statement has Bosworth facing criminal charges.  Yet, there’s another portion of the petition that candidates also swear an oath to… and regularly violate with no consequence.

nomoreplaceholders“I, under oath, declare that I am eligible to seek the office for which I am a candidate, that I am registered to vote as a member of the _________ party, and that if I am a legislative or county candidate I reside in the district from which I am a candidate. If nominated and elected, I will qualify and serve in that office.“

(Aside from the penalties in law ascribed to violating the oath at the bottom of the petition) Why should the oath at the bottom of the petition matter… but the one at the top is thrown out with regular abandon by South Dakota Democrats? Because as a regular and common practice, they have candidates present petitions for legislative office who have no intention of running and serving in the office for which their party nominates them.

The State Legislature took a huge step yesterday in fixing that.

State Senator Corey Brown introduced an amendment to Senate Bill 69 that strengthens the integrity of South Dakota elections by tightly constricting ability of candidates to withdraw, limiting withdrawals and eliminating the placeholder loophole. The Brown amendment sets forth:

Section 19. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

If a party candidate for public office withdraws after filing petitions with the secretary of state, the appropriate party central committee may make a replacement nominee only if:

(1) The party candidate:

(a) Withdraws because of personal illness or illness of an immediate family member that was diagnosed after the petition filing and the illness prevents the candidate from performing the duties of the office sought; and

(b) Files with the withdrawal request a certificate describing the illness and signed by at least two licensed physicians;

(2) There is no other nominee for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate as of the time of the withdrawal;

(3) The party candidate has been elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in another elective office which duties conflict by law with the duties of the office sought, has become the nominee for another elective office, or is deceased; or

(4) The party candidate permanently moves from his or her physical address stated in the nominating petition filed with the secretary of state, and swears and certifies under oath before the secretary of state that the candidate has not resided in the district for a period of thirty consecutive calendar days and has no intention of resuming residency in the district.”

The Brown amendment tightly constricts the reasons for candidate withdrawal to circumstances which arise after the submission of the petition to the Secretary of State, eliminating ‘ghost candidates’ or ‘placeholders’ who are placed into the race for the sole purpose of being replaced later.

There’s more that went into the bill, and I may bring those up shortly, but this was a loophole worth closing.   Senate Bill 69 amended to underline the fact that oaths matter? This should be one measure we all move “Do pass.”

*Groan* Not the tan ban. Again.

@SoDakCampaigns

And in the pile of bills being introduced today, the infamous tan ban is back. Again.

Yes, there are a number of people sponsoring this measure I support and whose friendships I treasure.  But seriously? Another run at the tan ban? Hopefully, I can persuade them to see common sense. Especially when they’re trying to ban minors from when kids can go outside and use the sun to get their melatonin fix.  So, seriously – come on.

“It’s hard enough to be a small business and survive without the government regulating you,” Nagel said. “I feel like this is my business and I treat it responsibly.”

Nagel said her business promotes responsible tanning and enforces certain restrictions for safety purposes, including requiring parental permission for anyone 17 or younger.

and…

“It’s just so frustrating because as small business owners we don’t have thousands of dollars to hire lobbyists,” Nagel said.

and..

“It’s a babysitting bill,” Rozum said. “I don’t think the government should be babysitting what people do.”

Read it all here.

It was back in 2013 regarding another measure designed to keep us all safe from ourselves when I noted “Legislators need to leave tanning bans, eating behind the wheel, and other nit-picking nanny state measures alone, and stick to the big issues of keeping taxes low, reducing the bureaucracy, and doing as little damage as possible from January through April.”

What are your thoughts?

NRA-Backed measures to streamline background checks, and allow permitless carry introduced in in South Dakota Legislature

@SoDakCampaigns

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is getting fully behind two measures introduced by State Representative Jim Stalzer to both streamline the concealed weapon permitting process, as well as to create a permitless carrying option for South Dakota residents. The permitless option would keep the current system of concealed weapon permits in place for those who seek reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon across state lines.

First, House Bill 1096:

Yesterday, House Bill 1096, authored by state Representative Jim Stalzer (R-11), was introduced in the South Dakota House of Representatives.  HB 1096 revises the procedure for issuing a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  These changes, if enacted into law, will allow the state to apply for NICS exemption certification from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  If certified by the BATFE, this exemption would allow the initial background check done for a South Dakota concealed pistol permit to serve as a background check for all future purchases, eliminating the duplicative process.

Read more on it here via the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.   Also, and more importantly, House Bill 1116 which would allow South Dakota residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, unless they sought reciprocity with other permitting states:

HB 1116 is a necessary update to concealed carry statutes in South Dakota, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.  In South Dakota, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, one would need to possess a concealed pistol permit.

This permitless carry legislation gives South Dakotans the freedom to choose the best method of carrying for them, based on their attire, gender and/or physical attributes.  However, this legislation would also keep in place the current permitting system so that people who obtain a permit could still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.

Read that here.

The first measure has 19 co sponsors, and the permitless carry option presented in 1116 has 28.

A prior measure to allow permitless, or constitutional carry, found itself at the wrong end of a Gubernatorial veto from Governor Daugaard in 2012.

What do you think? Is it time to consider permitless carry in South Dakota?