Any thoughts from readers on podcasting?

In my search for adding value and readers to the website, I keep wondering if a podcast would help keep things lively and fresh?

I do participate in them from time to time, often with friends Murdoc & Jake at Dakota Town Hall. And what many of you might not know is that this last year, I (we) did pilot a podcast with a couple of politico friends, which ended up not coming to fruition because of life and job changes.  But I haven’t let the concept go.  I actually did radio during my last year or so in High School (many, many years ago on KGFX, your kind of country), so it’s not that part that’s daunting, and I have the equipment.  I mainly have a hang-up on that I’d like to do things differently.

I find myself more interested in doing a video podcast, as I find it more personal. Technically.. the problem there is two-fold. The lighting in my area isn’t where I’d like it.. which I can probably fix with what’s on hand. And I don’t know that I’ve hit on software/camera combo that I like well enough. Production-wise, there’s the writing and the editing. Piloting a few episodes, I need to have a good idea of what I’m going to say to reduce rambling, and the ahhs.. and uhhs.. and keeping it moving is important, so editing is important.  So there’s additional time that’s involved.

I’ve always shied away from it because I’ve feared it would be a time-suck, and I find my time stretched pretty thin anyways. But it has been one of those things that continue to nag at me, as in “I should be doing it.”

What are your thoughts? Would a podcast/vodcast add something that you as a reader aren’t getting already?

Okay.. Fess up. Now who went and broke Cory?

The ick factor just got turned up to 11 this morning with a story from The Dakota Scout how former candidate and current prison inmate Joek Koskan is trying to explain the nuances of incest to the court as a way to reduce the sentence he received for his crimes against his daughter and society:

Koskan argues he shouldn’t be required to register on the sex offender registry because the incest was “consensual.”

“Furthermore,” he writes, “incest is more similarly situated to bigamy than to aggravated incest as both bigamy and incest require consensual relationships that are prohibited by law and not offenses involving minors or forcible acts. Both bigamy and incest are considered non-violent low level felonies.”

and..

Koskan is representing himself. His lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Read the entire story of creepiness here.

Again, ick.

Representative Tim Reisch Legislative Report
January 14, 2024

Happy New Year to the good citizens of District 8! I look forward to serving you in 2024. The ninety-ninth legislative session of the South Dakota Legislature kicked off on January 9th with Governor Noem’s State of the State Address. She began by thanking the veterans in attendance for their service, and then congratulating the SDSU football team on winning their second straight national championship. The governor then highlighted many of the attributes of living in the great State of South Dakota.

On the second day of the session, the Chief Justice of the SD Supreme Court delivered the State of the Judiciary Address. Chief Justice Steven Jensen spoke of both the challenges and accomplishments of our court system. He also highlighted the work that the specialty courts do to divert individuals from penitentiary time and reform their lives.

Because we anticipate a higher number of bills to be introduced this year, committees in both chambers began considering bills on the third legislative day. Unlike the US Congress, our state legislature ensures that every bill filed by one of its members gets a hearing. I will again serve as Chair of the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee this year. Being named a committee chair as a freshman legislator is a rarity, but my years of military service combined with my experience as county veterans service officer and time in state government have prepared me well for this important role.

I also serve on the House Education Committee. I am passionate about providing as much support as possible to our school districts and state supported universities. Governor Noem has announced a measure (HB 1048) aimed at raising teacher’s salaries. I absolutely support raising teacher’s salaries but the way the bill is currently worded has raised concerns among school administrators. I plan to work closely with District 8 School Superintendents to try to get this right.

I also enjoy serving on the House Judiciary Committee. My experience serving as Miner County Sheriff and as the SD Secretary of Corrections has been useful in weighing the pros and cons of the many bills that come before us. Several bills have already been introduced that increase the penalties for crimes. While it’s often popular to throw the book at criminals, I believe it’s also important to consider evidence-based practices that have been proven to reduce the likelihood that the offender will commit additional offenses upon their release from prison.

I consider it a great honor to serve as your state representative. If you live in District 8, you may leave a message for me while I’m in Pierre by calling 605.773.3851. You can also email me at Tim.Reisch@sdlegislature.gov.

Starting Out Strong
By Senator Casey Crabtree

MADISON–Lawmakers from across South Dakota assembled in Pierre to kick off the 99th Legislative Session. For 38 legislative working days, the House, Senate and Governor will work together on the necessary policy changes to make South Dakota an even better place to live.

On Tuesday, Governor Noem delivered her State of the State address and highlighted the freedoms and values that make South Dakota an incredible place. In particular, safe communities and economic strength. It can be easy to take both for granted, but state leaders can never waver on sustaining and protecting either because our residents need both to thrive. This year, those two topics will be major focal points for me and the Senate. 

So far I’ve introduced two proposals this year. SB 78 is aimed at propping up South Dakota’s ethanol industry. Today, South Dakota is the fourth largest production state of ethanol, but we only rank 22nd in E15 retail sales. In South Dakota, 64 percent of the corn we grow is used for ethanol production, supporting 11,000 family farms and 30,000 jobs. By encouraging gas stations to carry E15 at their pumps we can keep our homegrown fuels closer to home and closer to consumers which will increase profits for corn growers and reduce fuel costs for consumers. 

SJR 501 was introduced again this year with Rep. Tony Venhuizen of Sioux Falls. South Dakotans value hard work and we also value taking care of our neighbors. SJR 501 would ask voters in the November General Election if the State’s Medicaid program should have the option to consider a work requirement to receive those benefits. We should not encourage able-bodied adults to live off of welfare programs. Instead, we should incentive work and encourage adding value back to the economy and community.

In the days ahead, my colleagues and I will be introducing a number of proposals related to education. The best investment we can make in South Dakota’s future is to afford our youth the best education and to value hard work. We’re looking at ways to improve student assessments, protect teachers from violent students, incentivize new teachers, and care for children facing neglect and abuse at home.

The Legislature will likely consider around 500 pieces of legislation this year along with numerous appointments to state agencies and boards. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to hearing from my constituents throughout District 8 on their thoughts about the bills before the Legislature. I also look forward to greeting constituents when they visit the Capitol. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the people of District 8. It is an honor.

###

Grateful for Those Who Stand Up for Life
By Sen. John Thune

Each January, tens of thousands of everyday Americans gather in Washington, D.C., for the March for Life. They come from every part of the country, from every walk of life, and from every generation, but they are united in their conviction that every human life has inherent value.

It’s not a complicated idea. The right to life is a fundamental right, one that our founders affirmed in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable” and “self-evident.” Abortion advocates might like to obscure this fact, but they face an uphill battle. At some level, every person knows that when we talk about abortion, we’re talking about taking a human life. This is a great moral wrong. So I’m grateful that there continues to be so many Americans dedicated to speaking up for the unborn, standing up for life, and bearing witness to the truth that every life has dignity.

I believe this simple truth is what draws countless Americans to brave long bus rides and cold weather to come to Washington for the annual march. I’m particularly proud of the South Dakotans who have made the long trek to Washington, D.C., or those who traveled to Pierre for the state Walk for Life. For 50 years, marchers kept the faith that the United States would one day affirm protections for the unborn. About 18 months ago, 50 years of hoping and praying paid off when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to meaningful protections for unborn Americans.

I’m grateful for the marchers who continued to believe in this important cause. The March for Life’s public witness is critically important, and it’s no less important today than it was before Roe was overturned. But it’s just one small part of the pro-life movement. Every day, around the country, there are numerous organizations doing the quiet and critical work of supporting expectant mothers and their babies. This important work is often unseen, but it has an immeasurable impact in the lives of those it reaches.

I’m proud that there continues to be a strong pro-life movement working to promote a culture of life in our country. In the March for Life’s long history, it has brought together students, church groups, elected officials, professional athletes, and presidents. The faces may change over the years, but the marchers’ commitment to the right to life has not wavered. Thank you to all who march.

###

South Dakota Republican Women commends US Supreme Court for ruling on state-level decisions removing Trump from primary ballots

On January 11, 2024, the Executive Committee of The South Dakota Federation of Republican Women passed a resolution commending the United States Supreme Court for exercising jurisdiction and reviewing state-level decisions removing Donald J. Trump from 2024 primary ballots.

In America, we honor the presumption of innocence: citizens cannot be punished until proven guilty. Each American has the right to due process of law and the right to defend him or herself if accused of crimes. We teach children that America is the land of the free. Refusing to suffer the rule of tyrants and despots, we choose leaders via free and fair democratic elections. Donald Trump has not been convicted of insurrection – removing his name from primary ballots contravenes fundamental rights. For Trump is entitled to the same protections as all Americans. He deserves due process. Removal from the ballot punishes him for a crime for which he has not been convicted. But, perhaps more importantly, his removal punishes millions of innocent Americans, abnegating their basic right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Even Trump’s primary opponents decry the injustice and dangerous precedent this sets. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The idea that one bureaucrat in an executive position can unilaterally disqualify someone from office turns on its head every notion of constitutional due process this country has abided by for over 200 years. It opens up Pandora’s box…” Unless the Court rectifies this injustice, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy pledged to withdraw from the Colorado and Maine primaries, warning “This is what an actual threat to democracy looks like. The system is hell bent on taking this man out, the Constitution be damned.” Secretary Nikki Haley’s campaign issued a statement saying: “It should be up to voters to decide who gets elected.” A spokesperson for Governor Chris Christie said Trump should “remain on the ballot until convicted of insurrection following a trial that featured evidence that’s accepted by a jury.” It’s telling that those who have the most to gain from Trump’s removal are united in decrying the decision to remove him.

This is about far more than partisan politics. This is about America and whether she remains the land of the free. Multiple state courts have considered Trump’s removal and reached inconsistent results. In such cases, the United States Supreme Court should intervene before things spiral out of control. And we’ve reached that dire threshold. Maine’s Secretary of State declared herself judge, jury, and executioner of Trump’s campaign.

Hence, the South Dakota Federation of Republican Women commends our nation’s Highest Court for granting certiorari and ruling on the merits, ensuring each state follows the Constitution and that no state denies an American citizen’s fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court must defend American voters’ right to choose their President.

Giving Power Back to the People: All Party Voters Should Have a Say in Their Party’s Nominee.
By Rep. Tyler Tordsen 

In the spirit of democracy, South Dakota has an opportunity to elevate the voices of its citizens through a proposal that would reshape the process of selecting statewide officials. At the heart of this resolution lies a simple yet powerful principle: putting the voters first.

The current method of allowing a small group of people at a partisan convention to determine the candidates for the offices of Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, Public Utility Commissioner, and Commissioner of School and Public Lands seems antiquated in comparison to the broader democratic processes already in place for other positions. South Dakota already entrusts the selection of its candidates for Governor, U.S. Senators, U.S. House Representative, county officials, and legislators to the people.

It’s time to extend this democratic approach to all statewide offices. By supporting this effort, South Dakota can reaffirm its commitment to a government of, by, and for the people. In my opinion, these statewide offices are too important to only let a couple hundred people decide. This proposal would allow ALL registered voters in their party to decide. Our constituents deserve a say.

It’s important to note this proposal is not a mandate but rather a question posed to South Dakota voters on the November 2024 ballot. The resolution proposes a straightforward mechanism: any statewide race with two or more candidates from the same party would be nominated through a partisan primary election. This approach also differs from the Open “Jungle” Primaries concept of California, and instead ensures a tailored solution that fits South Dakota. Election year after election year, people are discouraged in June to see their ballots limited and instead finding these statewide offices of importance are nominated by a small group.

We should let the voters make the decision who should go on to represent them and their party in the general election. Thoughtfully picking the candidate who best reflects the party’s true values and the values of the people. HJR 5001 keeps the spirit of South Dakota’s motto, “Under God the People Rule,” and aligns with our state’s fundamental values of empowering the electorate.

HJR 5001, if passed by your elected legislators, would pose this crucial question to South Dakotans on this November’s ballot. For me that vote is a simple one; let the voters decide if the voters should decide.

Attorney General Jackley Announces Appointments to Open Meeting Commission

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has appointed five state’s attorneys to the Open Meeting Commission effective immediately.

The five state’s attorneys are:

• Emily Sovell, Sully County, chairperson.
• Katelynn Hoffman, Turner County.
• Wendy Kloeppner, Lake County.
• Lance Russell, Fall River/Oglala Lakota County.
• Michael Smith, Clay County.

“This commission is about transparency in government and dealing with complaints on governmental agencies not following the state’s open meeting law,” said Attorney General Jackley. “Thank you to the five state’s attorneys who have agreed to serve. We appreciate their devotion to open government.”

The Open Meeting Commission was established in 2004. By state statute, the members are required to be state’s attorneys who are appointed by the Attorney General.

Attorney General Jackley has introduced Senate Bill 26 in this year’s legislative session, which would allow Deputy State’s Attorneys, who are equally qualified, to serve on the commission if needed. That bill has not yet been heard in committee.

For more on the Open Meeting Commission, click here: https://atg.sd.gov/legal/opengovernment/MeetingCommission.aspx#gsc.tab=0.

-30-

The South Dakota Legislature this week is proposing a new measure to let voters decide whether they want to put the nomination for statewide candidates on the primary ballot to let the primary voters for each political party to decide who their candidates will be, versus the candidates being chosen only by those attending the political party conventions:

House Joint Resolution 5001

Title:
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring all non-judicial offices elected by a statewide vote to be nominated at a primary election.

Sponsors:
Representatives Tordsen (prime), Bartels, Chase, Heermann, Kull, Mortenson, Rehfeldt, Sauder, Venhuizen, and Wangsness and Senators Johnson (prime), Crabtree, Davis, Diedrich, Duhamel, Reed, Rohl, Schoenbeck, and Zikmund

A JOINT RESOLUTION, Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring all non-judicial offices elected by a statewide vote to be nominated at a primary election.

Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article VII of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, shall be submitted to the electors of the state for approval.

Section 2. That Article VII of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended with a NEW SECTION:

General election candidates for United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, or for any office created by law that is elected by a statewide vote, may only be nominated by means of a primary election. The primary ballot may not indicate or imply any endorsement of any candidate by a political party or by any person or organization.

The Legislature may, by law, establish any necessary procedures to implement this section, including procedures for replacing a candidate for any office who advanced from the primary election but is not able to participate in the general election due to death, withdrawal, or disqualification, and procedures for allowing a party to nominate a candidate for office when no member of that party filed in the primary election for that office.

The bill, prime sponsored by State Representative Tyler Tordsen in the House also boasts the support of Republican Leadership in both chambers, which signals that this proposal is likely to get serious consideration.  If placed on the ballot, it would be up to the voters to decide whether they have any interest in it. If the voters decide it’s not something they want to mess with, they can certainly reject the constitutional amendment, and leave it to the political parties.

Predictably, some members of the hard right are already freaking out about it.  But, it’s more of a philosophical question. Do we want to expand the group of people who choose who the political party’s nominees are? Or is the juice not worth the squeeze?

Your thoughts?