Remember my post a short time ago noting that the SDGOP’s Confederate caucus is having some meeting in a few weeks to go over demands they’re going to make on the party for their fall effort?

It sounds like they’re not going to accomplish a darn thing except talking and talking and wasting the day if you look at their agenda:

Ballot Propositions Discussion
• Purpose
• Goal
• Action Plan
• List of ballot propositions: (They list all of the ballot measures, one by one by one.)

Strategy/Coordination of Key Races
• Public Utilities Commissioner
• Other

Read that here.

It’s so cute how they talk about an “action plan.”  Because if you look at the monthly FEC Report that was just filed by the Republican Party, I don’t think there’s enough money to pay for any action:

SDGOP 2024 AugustFEC Federal by Pat Powers on Scribd

I don’t see that any of the people who were calling this meeting on the list of people who donated.   And as they’re going to find out, almost nobody else’s name is on the list, either. When groups rant on about too many people being under the Republican tent, and they need to kick people out of the Republican Party, what happens when they get their wish? A State Republican Party that 4 months before the election only raises $278.

$278.43 raised, $7705.26 spent, $49943.19 cash on hand.   At that burn rate, the party has about 6-7 months left, and that’s spending the bare minimum. Throw some campaign expenditures in there, and it’s going to be gone much faster than that.

A donation for $250, a donation for $25, and 3.43 in interest is not a sustainable model.  We’d be even further into it if they had been able to hold TAR camp this year. County GOP groups are holding on to their cash, statewide candidates are not going to send in cash that might be used against them if there’s a takeover, And the state party is left unable to support it’s candidates.

$278.43.. wow.  To put it in perspective, I spent about that last week to have a few comic books professionally pressed and cleaned for my collection (first world problems, I know).    This is not a good situation. SDGOP fundraising has been brought to a near-halt by agenda driven groups who have no interest in the fact that “a rising tide lifts all ships,” and are more concerned with attacking “the establishment,” and wanting to force the GOP off the road.

At this rate, they’ll have their wish by the time of the next State Party officer election.

Attorney General Jackley’s Statement On DCI Investigation Into Actions of Former Division of Motor Vehicles Employee

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issues this statement regarding the investigation into the actions of a former South Dakota Division of Motor Vehicles employee.

“The Attorney General’s Office was contacted in February of 2024 by the state Department of Revenue after the agency reported a former Division of Motor Vehicles employee had created a false/fraudulent motor vehicle title. The Department of Revenue and the Governor’s Office cooperated with the investigation conducted by the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI).

The DCI investigation led to the discovery of 13 forged vehicle titles by the former employee between 2016 and 2023. The titles were used to secure almost $400,000 worth of loans. There is no evidence that others were involved in this criminal activity. Since the former employee has passed away, no charges will be filed.”

-30-

Attorney General Jackley Challenges Biden’s Election Executive Order

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has joined Attorneys General from seven other states in challenging a Presidential Executive Order that would encroach on the States’ authority to regulate voter registration.

Executive Order 14019, signed by President Biden, creates a federal bureaucracy that serves as a voter registration organization. The Attorneys General argue that the plan creates a bureaucracy that violates the U.S. Constitution and exceeds the executive branch’s authority. The challenge states that voter registration is a state function and responsibility.

“This is an election integrity issue and another overreach by the federal government against the States,” said Attorney General Marty Jackley. “Federal agencies should not become instruments for the Biden Administration’s partisan voter registration drive.  South Dakota Secretary of State Johnson and County Auditors should not be subject to federal interference in their duties regarding voter registration and our elections.”

South Dakota Secretary of Monae Johnson also opposes the Executive Order. “I’m proud to represent South Dakota and join Attorney General Marty Jackley in support of this lawsuit and the fight to protect election integrity,” she said.

Other Attorneys General joining the challenge are from the states of: Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

The challenge can be read here:

Communities Face $51M Budget Shortfall with IM-28
Proposed Initiated Measure A “Disaster” for Cities and Towns

PIERRE, S.D. – A new analysis from the South Dakota Municipal League estimates that if IM-28 passes, cities and towns would lose at least $51.5 million in sales tax revenue each year. The fiscal analysis includes IM-28’s impact on each municipality in the state.

IM-28 would reduce municipal sales tax collections in larger communities like Sioux Falls and Rapid City by more than 8 percent, according to the analysis. Smaller towns like Roslyn, Tulare, White River, and Wolsey would see losses above 40 percent. The highest estimated loss would occur in Bonesteel with a 59 percent reduction. The full analysis with city information is available at nosdincometax.com/impact.

“Local governments directly impact the daily lives of South Dakotans,” said Sara Rankin, Executive Director of the Municipal League. “IM-28 would create massive holes in local budgets used for police, roads, parks, and everything residents expect their community to provide. Simply put, IM-28 would be devastating for our daily lives.”

The language in IM-28 conflicts with South Dakota Codified Law 10-52-2, which allows cities and towns to impose a sales tax of up to 2 percent on the same items taxed by the state. This means that if the state cannot tax “anything sold for human consumption,” neither can a city or town.

The poor drafting of IM-28 is referenced in the Attorney General’s explanation of IM-28, which notes that “Judicial or legislative clarification of the measure will be necessary.”

An annual loss of $51.5 million would reduce funding to fix potholes, update infrastructure, staff libraries, operate pools, and maintain parks.

The estimated loss for each municipality was calculated by first aggregating all of the monthly sales tax reports for communities by SIC code from the Department of Revenue for 2023. Then a percentage was assigned to each SIC code to represent how much of the sales tax revenue generated by businesses under that code comes from consumables. Lastly, those percentages were applied to the 2023 tax data for each community in the state to develop the estimate.

“IM-28 would be a disaster for cities and towns,” said Harry Weller, Mayor of Kadoka and Municipal League President. “In my town of Kadoka, we’ll lose at least 24 percent of our sales tax revenue. Local governments run on lean budgets as it is. If IM-28 passes and we’re barred from collecting sales tax, we’ll have no choice but to increase property taxes.”

IM-28 is on the ballot as an initiated measure in the General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

###

ABOUT SDML: The South Dakota Municipal League was organized in 1934 as a nonpartisan, nonprofit association of incorporated municipalities in South Dakota. The League’s mission is the cooperative improvement of municipal government in South Dakota. A vote of the members at the annual conference determines the League’s major policies.

Resources:

1. IM-28 Municipal Sales Tax Impact
2. Legislative Research Council Report, July 30, 2024
3. Photo: Sara Rankin
4. Photo: Harry Weller
5. Sara Rankin Audio
6. Harry Weller Audio

Yesterday, South Dakota Democrats filed 2 more replacements for positions that had been vacated on the ballot:

Dennis Solberg filled the District 5 State Senate position vacated by Russell Ronke, and Fedora Sutton-Butler filed for one of the two District 7 House races that had been vacated by Democrats.   That makes 15 of 35 Senate seats that Democrats have a candidate for, and 31 of 70 House seats.

And a good reminder. You’re guaranteed to lose the seats you don’t run a candidate for.

Interesting discussions on how political parties replace candidates yesterday. Do you know they changed some laws on that in the last few years?

For the Ben Krohmer District 20 replacement, being a multi-county legislative district, there is a specific law that applies:

12-6-57. Meeting of party committee to fill vacancies–Manner of voting.

To fill a vacancy for a party candidate to a:

(1) State office or as a presidential elector, the party State Central Committee chairman shall call a central committee meeting to fill the vacancy, and designate the time and place where the meeting shall be held;

(2) Multi-county legislative district, the party State Central Committee chairman shall call a meeting of affected county party central committee members to fill the vacancy, designate the time and place where the meeting shall be held, designate the person who will conduct the meeting, and notify all affected central committee members of this information;

(3) Single-county legislative district or county office, the county party central committee chairman shall call a meeting of the county party central committee to fill the vacancy and designate the time and place where the meeting shall be held.

Vacancies filled by State Central Committee shall be by unit representation, each county casting the number of votes cast in that county at the last general election for that party’s candidate for Governor. All other vacancies shall be filled by a majority vote of the affected committee members present.

Read that here.

The law seems to be pretty specific in that it spells out “the party State Central Committee chairman shall call a meeting of affected county party central committee members to fill the vacancy, designate the time and place where the meeting shall be held, designate the person who will conduct the meeting, and notify all affected central committee members of this information;”

What was that notice that went out about the meeting a couple days ago? I think you can find it here on the website:

From: Rich Hilgemann
Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 11:25 AM
Subject: D20 replacement meeting notice

I am Rich Hilgemann, a region director for the state Republican party, Chairman Wiik has tasked me with running this replacement meeting. I am reaching out because all of you are eligible voters and need to be notified of a replacement meeting to be held on Monday August 12th at the Mitchell Public Library, 221 N. Duff Street in Mitchell, SD.

Yesterday afternoon Representative Krohmer withdrew from the 2024 general election ballot. All elected Republicans residing in District 20, and organized county party executive boards are eligible to vote at a replacement meeting. Davison County Republicans have a room booked for us and will also help with credentialing.

Credentials will run from 6pm to 7pm.
Nominations and voting starts at 7pm.
Spectators are welcome but I will ask they be seated separately from the credentialed voting block.

Those eligible to obtain credentials: There are 2 organized counties in District 20, Jerauld and Davison and their executive boards are eligible as long as they are still registered Republicans in District 20/their counties. District 20 partisan office holders, current Legislators/Senator, county elected officials (Coroner, Sheriff, Auditor, Deeds, Treasurer, Commissioners, State’s Attorney) and precinct people.

Nominations and a second will be required to be considered a candidate. Nominating speeches and candidate speeches I believe would be in order, seconding speeches optional. Nominations and seconds can only be made by credentialed voters.

I do want to apologize for the short notice and nature of this notice but the deadline for replacement is the day after the meeting so email, social media, and phone calls are what we are relegated to. Also I would ask your help in forwarding this email to those who are eligible but have not seen this email notice or know about the meeting yet.

Please feel free to reply to this email with questions or concerns.

Thanks!
Rich Hilgemann

Rich Hilgemann calling the meeting does not appear to be the party State Central Committee chairman calling the meeting. While he might’ve been tasked with it, that notice doesn’t really seem to indicate that he is the Republican party state central committee chairman himself, does it?

I hate to be that guy, but on the surface, it would not appear that the notice requirements of 12-6-57 were followed.

Which casts some aspersions on that entire Monday night process.

Whew! Long post today thanking and encouraging your review of our sponsors!

Lots going on here at the home office of Dakotawarcollege.com, as we thank Gideon Oakes for SD Public Utilities Commissioner for his brief run at SDWC, at the same time we have some new advertisers through the election. As well as a returning sponsor.

If you think the more people should be voting in elections, you might want to clock on the ad in the right hand column and check out what the “Yes on H” people have to say, including an endorsement from State Senator Mike Rohl who says:

“As a life-long Republican I strongly support Open Primaries in South Dakota. South Dakota’s elections are paid for by all South Dakotans, not the political parties or the elites that run them. All legally registered voters should be eligible to participate in publicly paid for elections affecting their representation in government.

While the party bosses and the political swamp will campaign against Open Primaries with misinformation and fear; I proudly stand in support of my neighbors and community because they should decide who represents us.Open Primaries returns power to the people, and that’s who I represent and care about.

I am voting Yes on Amendment H.”

You can click on the ad, or read more about the measure here.

Also joining us on Advertiser’s Row are the folks opposing  Initiated Measure 28, reminding us to not take the bait – because it’s a trap!

While the measure claims it will repeal just the tax on food, it does much much more than that!

“But the truth is, it repeals the tax on anything sold for human consumption, including tobacco products. As a result, passing IM-28 will create a gigantic hole in our state budget. Though the measure claims to have good intentions, it’s actually very bad for South Dakotans. Passing IM-28 will set us up for the creation of a state income tax – which the vast majority of South Dakotans do not want.”

Find out more at their website at NoSDIncomeTax.com.

Our friends at Summit Carbon Solutions are returning to advertiser’s row, to support South Dakota Ag & Industry in keeping us competitive across the country and around the world.

With over 70 percent of the route in South Dakota and project wide in voluntary easements, while continuing to partner with more landowners every day. These partnerships represent an overwhelming majority of landowners who understand the company’s commitment to protecting the economic viability of key South Dakota industries through providing decarbonization solutions. 

We have another advertiser who will be joining us shortly in coming days, encouraging your vote on another ballot measure, and I believe we may have yet another one starting shortly.

With less than three months to go until the election, SDWC has advertising opportunities for reaching South Dakota’s opinion leaders, based on a first-come, first-serve basis for available positions.  As of today, I have the #1 spot in the left-hand column, along with down page advertising.  Monthly spots are available, and I do provide discounts for longer ad commitments.  Information on ad prices, ad positions, and ad commitments may be directed to the webmaster by clicking here.

In addition to our new sponsors, please take a moment to visit our long-time advertisers such as South Dakota’s chief executive Governor Kristi Noem, our friend South Dakota Senator John Thune,  Congressman Dusty Johnson, and Republican United States Senator Mike Rounds. Our friends at South Dakota Ag Alliance are also here to fight for landowner rights and common sense ag development. 

Of course, at Dakota Campaign Store, down on the right, you’ll find me already busy in 2024 with yard signs, postcards, and all the things a professional campaign needs to make an impression.

Thank you to our advertisers for your support, and please reach out if you’d like to join them!

Interesting update this evening from the district 20 meeting to replace Ben Krohmer on the ballot, as it sounds like this was maybe not exactly the most organized and unbiased process.

The precinct people, who seemed to be somewhat pre-coached, as both candidates gave their speeches, and the precinct people all voted for Kaley Nolz of Brookings while the elected officials who attended cold and listened to the speeches largely voted for Mike Lauritsen of Mitchell.

And as I’m hearing while Rich Hilgemann ran the event for the Republican party, my correspondent tells me Ben Krohmer – who gave the nominating speech for Nolz – started collecting the ballots. After he got about 10 of them, Rich Hilgemann remarked ‘“oh, I should be doing that,” and took over.

(Rich contends Krohmer simply brought the bucket from the back off the registration table and went to pass it down the line when he grabbed it and went down each row himself.)

Not sure that’s the way it’s supposed to work. But that’s the way I’m told it went down.

Unfortunately, the precinct people outnumbered the elected officials, so D20 Republicans picked the one whom they had better make sure moves into the district next January.

In an election issue that has been debated all the way back to the late 1800’s, South Dakotans are being asked this year to revisit the language of our South Dakota Constitution.

As they did nearly 135 years ago, South Dakotans are being asked to go back and fix some language in our State Constitution that people thought should have been included. Predictably, Hillary Clinton donor and State Representative Liz May doesn’t know why we’d want to engage in such tom-foolery, since she’s trapped in the 90’s. (the 1890’s).

From the Secretary of State:

Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Updating Gender References for Certain Officeholders and Persons.

Attorney General Explanation: The South Dakota Constitution became effective upon the State joining the United States in 1889. The generic male pronouns he, his, and him are used in the text of the State Constitution to reference certain officeholders or individuals.

This amendment changes the text of the State Constitution to remove the use of generic male pronouns when referencing certain officeholders or individuals. For example, when referencing the Governor, instead of saying “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.” The amendment makes similar changes to other references to the Governor, as well as to references to other officeholders including Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Justices, and Circuit Court Judges. The amendment also makes similar changes to references in the Constitution to general classes of people such as persons, electors, and public officers.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.

Con – Constitutional Amendment E

Amendment E is an unnecessary change to language in our South Dakota Constitution. The reference to “he” in our Constitution is simply a singular pronoun. The historic use of gereric male pronouns in our constitution is proper style and form and clearly does not exclude or hinder women from holding public office. While this seems like a minor change now, opening up the constitution in order to correct pronouns will not accomplish anything substantive, but will cost taxpayer dollars to reprint materials that are already effective in their current form.

Liz May, State Representative, District 27

Read that here.

Not sure what you do with that?

In case you’re interested, State Senator Erin Tobin provided the “Pro” on the measure, which was supported and suggested by Governor Kristi Noem:

Pro – Constitutional Amendment E

Amendment E will rightfully update the language within our State
Constitution to reflect our elected and appointed officials pertaining
to the office in which they hold.

South Dakota has a long history of strong female representation in
all three branches of government, and the Constitution should
accurately reflect these esteemed members of our government.

As a mother of a little girl in South Dakota, I want all young
women to realize that they can grow up to do anything they set their
mind to, and they too have potential to lead our State in their
profession and/or politics.

I urge the South Dakota voters to vote “yes” for this amendment.
Such a vote would be a show of respect for our state’s past, present,
and future female leaders!

Erin Tobin, State Senator, District 1

*Sigh* And of course, once again, the SOS can’t get that right, since Erin is in District 21. Because “30,000 copies of this publication were printed by the Office of the Secretary of State at a cost of $0.28 each.” And proofreading is hard. Ugh.

In case Liz May needed an interlude reminding her that Women can vote, here’s that episode of Schoolhouse Rock she missed:

Independent reports this past weekend indicate that we have a slate set in the contest to replace State Representative Ben Krohmer on the Republican ballot in the District 20 House race. Mitchell small businessman/CEO of Mitchell Area Development Corporation Mike Lauritsen is going to be battling it out with Brookings resident and custom wood artist Kaley Nolz in campaigning for the seat at the meeting tonight at the Mitchell Public Library.

Brookings resident? Isn’t this for a seat representing District 20 which includes Mitchell?

Well, yes, but..  Here’s where we go down the rabbit hole a bit.

According to live voter data from the Secretary of State’s website, Nolz is registered to vote at 24519 412TH AVE, MITCHELL. Which from a review of other voter file information appears to be the voting address of this 27-28 year old’s parents.

But, when you do an internet search to try to to find out who this candidate hopeful is, as detailed on the website for her parent’s ranch, Mom & Dad note helpfully point out that Kaley Nolz lives in Brookings, SD.

If mom and dad say she lives here, I have no reason to dispute that.  And public records would further bear out the truth of that statement.

According to public records from Brookings County, Nolz appears to maintain a home on 7th Street. Across the street from the SDSU Campus:

 

Looking at the property info, that’s the same property class code I have on my own home a couple of miles south. Which is coded to indicate that it is owner occupied.

So, if Nolz appears to be saying that her Brookings home is owner occupied, and mom & dad say she lives in Brookings, then I think we can safely call her a Brookings resident. Which brings up a couple of housekeeping items regarding her candidacy.

According to South Dakota codified law,

12-1-4. Criteria for determining voting residence.

For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person is domiciled as shown by an actual fixed permanent dwelling, establishment, or any other abode to which the person returns after a period of absence.

A person who leaves the residence and goes into another county of this state or another state or territory for a temporary purpose has not changed residence.

A person is considered to have gained residence in any county or municipality of this state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no present intention of leaving.

I wonder what Leah Anderson would say about Nolz’s voting residence and her eligibility? Since with her parents posting that she lives in Brookings, and Nolz herself declaring that her owner occupied “actual fixed permanent dwelling” is there, that’s kind of a no-brainer. She lives and resides in Brookings.

Despite her running for office in Mitchell.

But, just in time, the South Dakota Constitution would provide her an out, as she can run from another district within the state, as long as she establishes a permanent residence within the district she wants to represent by the time she might take the oath of office.

3. Qualifications for legislative office–Officers ineligible.

     No person is eligible for the office of representative who is not a qualified elector in the district from which such person is chosen, and a citizen of the United States, and who has not been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election, and who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

It’s a lot to remember, but Nolz has got that going for her. If she would want to run, and actually be seated by the House of Representatives, she’d just have to clear up those details and establish a residence that’s actually in District 20 by the time she’s sworn in.

Lots of questions to be answered before D20 GOP officers make their pick for who is running to represent them tonight.

Stay tuned for tonight’s candidate replacement election in Mitchell tonight for District 20.