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?

Thune Holds Commerce Committee Hearing on Freight Rail Challenges

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Holds Commerce Committee Hearing on Freight Rail Challenges

“As 2013 and 2014’s freight rail delays and service challenges highlighted, rail service is absolutely critical to our nation’s economy…Thankfully, this winter’s relatively mild weather and better service have provided some improvements, but there’s still work to be done.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today held his second hearing as chairman entitled, “Freight Rail Transportation: Enhancing Safety, Efficiency, and Commerce.” The hearing focused on challenges facing our nation’s freight rail network created by higher demand, pending and proposed rules and regulations, and infrastructure needs. Today’s hearing continued Thune’s work to improve freight rail service for ag producers and shippers and prevent future rail service disruptions from occurring.

Thune also invited Dave Brown, Chief Operating Officer of Genesee and Wyoming, parent company to South Dakota’s Rapid City, Pierre, and Eastern line (RCP&E), to testify before the hearing. Dave spoke about the opportunities and challenges that RCP&E and other shortline railroads face. Video of Mr. Brown’s statement is available here.

Last Congress, the Commerce Committee held various rail related hearings, including a hearing on the rail service challenges facing shippers across the country, which included agriculture producers in South Dakota who struggled with access to reliable freight rail service during a record harvest. In addition, on September 17, 2014, the Commerce Committee passed the bipartisan Surface Transportation Board (STB) reform bill that Senator Thune and former Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) introduced to institute common-sense reforms regarding how the STB works and to address rate disputes and service complaints. For a complete outline of Thune’s work to address last year’s rail service backlog, visit his website.

Video of Thune’s opening statement is here and text is below:

“As 2013 and 2014’s freight rail delays and service challenges highlighted, rail service is absolutely critical to our nation’s economy. South Dakota farmers scrambled to find rail cars and watched as rail turn times worsened, delaying shipments and creating grain storage challenges for the record breaking wheat, corn, and soybean crops.

“However, those delays were not just limited to the north central United States, they also extended across the country and impacted every shipping sector and industry.

“Thankfully, this winter’s relatively mild weather and better service have provided some improvements, but there’s still work to be done.

“I am pleased that Genesee and Wyoming, the parent company of South Dakota’s Rapid City, Pierre, and Eastern Railroad (RCP&E) has joined us for today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from Dave Brown, the Chief Operating Officer of Genesee and Wyoming, which is the largest Class II railroad in the country with over 100 shortline and regional railroads, about the opportunities and challenges the RCP&E and other shortline railroads face.

“From automobiles, to coal, to ethanol, to agriculture, rail service moves goods from farm and factory to consumer marketplaces across the country and across the globe. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) notes that freight rail moves roughly 40 tons per person each year. As a nation, we rely on cost efficient, timely service to move food, consumer products, and energy resources on a daily basis.

“The private infrastructure that makes up our nation’s freight rail system is costly, as old tracks and equipment require ongoing maintenance and investment. Our nation’s railroads continue to invest in new track, sidings, locomotives, and car resources with the goal of serving their customers. Class I railroads and shortlines alike face increasing demands for prompt, reliable, and safe service.

“In 2014 freight traffic increased nearly five percent over 2013 levels, and we should seek solutions that foster an even stronger freight rail network to meet this increasing demand.

“The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has proposed or finalized over 15 new freight rail safety rules since the passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and many of these regulations will take effect in 2015.

“Not only is the Positive Train Control (PTC) mandate looming, with its December 31st deadline, but the DOT has announced that it expects a crude-by-rail regulation to be published around May of this year.

“Although the PTC deadline is quickly approaching, it remains unattainable. Through the end of 2014, railroads have invested over $5 billion in PTC, and they expect to spend billions more in the coming years.

“They have begun installation of the radio towers, locomotive technology, and other PTC infrastructure, but full compliance with the statutory requirements cannot be achieved by the end of this year. The FRA and the Government Accountability Office have documented the immense technical and programmatic challenges with implementing PTC.

“As a result of these challenges, the DOT has reported that the deadline will not be met and has offered a proposal to ensure the benefits of PTC are realized. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a legislative fix to ensure that we can set a more realistic implementation timeline for this important safety improvement.

“I am also closely monitoring the proposed crude-by-rail requirements.

“I have expressed concerns to the Office of Management and Budget as well as the DOT about the unintended harms that could result from the proposed rule. The DOT estimates its proposed crude-by-rail rule could cost nearly $6 billion, and it acknowledges the rule would increase network delays and out-of-service time for rail equipment.

“Without question, we must improve the safety of our nation’s rail system, but I am concerned about the unattainable deadlines the rule proposes. Like the PTC mandate, there are very real impacts when federal agencies set unreasonable and, many times, unachievable deadlines.

“Among other things, the DOT issued this proposed rule without analyzing the potential tank car shop capacity needed to retrofit or replace over 100,000 DOT-111 tank cars. Shippers have raised concerns about a tank car shortage, with a disruption in energy supply transportation, if DOT finalizes this rule with an unattainable deadline.  I look forward to working with my colleagues, stakeholders, and the Secretary of Transportation on a realistic timeline for such a phase-out.

“While safety can and should be improved, we certainly do not need to build in system-wide delays and congestion like we have witnessed during the past year and a half.

“Our transportation network connects port to rail to truck. Delays, burdensome regulations, and failing infrastructure disrupt our nation’s economy and cost jobs. So, we must work together to find workable solutions.

“In addition, we must ensure that the Surface Transportation Board, which is tasked with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers, can provide effective and efficient oversight of the rail industry.

“This committee has a great deal of work to do in addressing freight rail service and safety in addition to passenger rail reauthorizations. I hope members will bring forward thoughtful solutions as we address these challenges.”

###

 

Rounds Introduces SDDOT Secretary Bergquist as Witness at Senate EPW Hearing

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Introduces SDDOT Secretary Bergquist as Witness at Senate EPW Hearing

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today introduced South Dakota Transportation Secretary Darin Bergquist as a witness at an EPW hearing to discuss America’s transportation needs.

“I’ve known Darin for years and I had the opportunity to actually appoint him as Secretary of Transportation when I was Governor,” said Rounds. “I can share with you that he has seen the ins and outs of trying to work with limited funding and in a rural state in which there’s always a challenge in how you take the dollars and spread them out, and literally deliver the best you can.”

Rounds went on to emphasize the importance of passing a long-term transportation bill that recognizes the needs of rural states as well as urban ones.

“The federal highway program is vital to making sure South Dakota has the funds that we need to manage our state’s highways and bridges, thereby providing for economic growth so that all South Dakotans can travel safely.”

A little more insight into the mysterious Capitol Tunnels, and why cards aren’t issued.

@SoDakCampaigns

I had forgotten about this, until a correspondent had brought it up.

So, why is access to the Capitol tunnels tightly controlled? It sounds as if they’re not tunnels of transit, but tunnels of naughtiness.

Doesn’t anyone remember why they always get closed? Illicit sexual rendezvous. And, the tunnels were a known benefit of being a DOT or Capitol employee. After the no smoking rule got put in place, it became the indoor smoking place to go.

Smoking and Sin.

Maybe the state should keep them off limits.