Attorney General Jackley Statement on EPA Rescinding Waters of the U.S. Rule

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today the Environmental Protection Agency, under Administrator Scott Pruitt and Corps of Engineers, under Douglas Lamont, have withdrawn the Obama-era regulation that asserts federal authority over state waters.

“It was always my concern that both the EPA and the Corps exceeded their authority granted by Congress. Today, the EPA and the Corps took a step forward in the process of restoring the control back to the States. I look forward to their final action to withdraw the WOTUS Rule and provide relief to the States,” said Jackley.

The proposed withdrawal of the WOTUS rule will be published in the Federal Register and the EPA will receive comments, after which point the withdrawal could be finalized. It is expected that the EPA, with input from the States, will then propose a new regulation to more clearly define its limited jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

The States actively sought postponement of the impending implementation of the WOTUS Rule while the courts could fully address the states’ concerns. On June 29, 2015, thirteen states filed in federal district court in North Dakota asking the court to vacate the new rule and bar the EPA and the Corps from enforcing the new definition. Several other states filed in their respective regions. The states contended the new definition of WOTUS violated provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution. On July 30, 2015, 31 states requested that the EPA and CORPS delay the effective date of the new Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the CWA.

On August 27, 2015, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction to delay the Rules implementation until the Court has an opportunity to fully review the administrative record. The Court found that it was likely that the federal government violated its grant of authority when it promulgated the Rule and likely failed to comply with the requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Court found the risk of harm to the States is great.

-30-

Americans for Prosperity – South Dakota
Announces New Dream Team Heading Up State Chapter

Speaker Pro Tem and Noem Area Director will lead South Dakota Chapter.

PIERRE – Americans for Prosperity – South Dakota (AFP-SD), the state’s leading grassroots advocate, today announced two key hires to lead its state chapter.

Don Haggar will serve South Dakota in a new capacity as the state director for AFP-SD. Haggar was elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives in 2012 after a successful career in the insurance and real estate industries; he served in leadership as Speaker Pro Tem, a position second only to Speaker of the House.

Haggar stepped down from the legislature to take the reins of AFP-SD after Ben Lee was promoted to AFP Regional Director. Haggar expressed his elation at joining AFP and believes he can have an even bigger policy impact with the grassroots organization: “This organization fights for the principles and ideals I hold dear, and has a history of getting results, not just in South Dakota, but across the country. Our state is under attack by those who wish to strip us of our rights, expand government, and stifle free speech. With the power of AFP’s grassroots network, I’ll be able to best serve our state promoting limited government, lower taxes, and personal freedom.”

Additionally, AFP-SD is equally excited that Andrew Curley will be joining the group as the Deputy Director. Curley worked with Rep. Kristi Noem, serving as the congresswoman’s Southeast Area Director in her congressional office. “Opportunities like this don’t come along often. I’m excited to join AFP and I look forward to working alongside the volunteers and activists to advance the cause of economic freedom in the state,” said Curley.

“We really created the dream team to serve South Dakota. Our state chapter is in good hands and I look forward to seeing the continued growth of our volunteer network,” said Lee.

Rep. Haggar Resigns; Governor Invites Public Input

PIERRE, S.D. – State Rep. Don Haggar has resigned his seat in the South Dakota House of Representatives. Haggar, a Sioux Falls Republican, has served in the state House since 2013, and is currently the body’s speaker pro tempore.

“Don Haggar has worked hard on behalf of his constituents and our state, and I am sorry to see him leave the Legislature,” said Gov. Daugaard. “I wish him well in the future.”

Haggar’s resignation, which is effective immediately, creates a vacancy that will be filled by gubernatorial appointment. The Governor is asking the public to nominate candidates to fill the position.

Those wishing to be considered for the appointment, or to offer nominations, should contact Grace Beck or Rachel Graves in the Office of the Governor at 605-773-3661. Nominations should include the candidate’s name, current address, telephone number and relevant background information.

Haggar represents District 10, which includes an area of Minnehaha County encompassing the cities of Brandon, Corson and Renner. The district also includes an area in northeastern Sioux Falls encompassing Washington High School, Laura B. Anderson Elementary School, the South Dakota School for the Deaf and Willow Run Golf Course. A map of the district is available on the LRC website at http://sdlegislature.gov/img/Legislative_Districts/10.pdf.

Gov. Daugaard expects to name an appointee by the end of the summer.

-30-

From KEVN News, Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s efforts to combat addiction were recently featured on their newscast:

Representative Kristi Noem is looking to help families stay together while recovering from addiction with two bills now headed to the Senate. Congresswoman Noem says her bills will make it possible for recovering addicts to be with their children and give them tools to stay together.

The bills passed through the House last week, and now head to the Senate. She says if there aren’t any amendments — she hopes it will head straight to the President.

and…

Noem says, “As we know from statistics we’ve seen across South Dakota — and frankly, across the United States, drug and alcohol addiction has been rising — increasing problems across the state. These bills would help keep families strong and together while they’re recovering from those addictions.”

Read it all here.

United States Supreme Court Rules with 12 Attorneys General on Immigration Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a decision allowing President Trump’s executive order, commonly called the “travel ban”, to take effect, with certain exceptions. The Court will hear the merits of the travel ban appeal this fall.

“The President of the United States has extraordinary power and authority to restrict alien entry into the United States for public-safety and national-security reasons. Our nation’s inconsistent immigration policy is unnecessarily affecting public safety and travel in South Dakota and this decision allows for time to review this current policy and ensure that protections are in place for our citizens,” said Jackley.

In March 2017, South Dakota joined 12 State Attorneys General and Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi in support of the temporary immigration policy.

-30-

I spent a bit of time on the phone today over Lunch, chasing down information on my prior post on the Special session trying to dictate who the next session’s leadership would be, and I had a couple people share some information as it relates to the upcoming election.

The word is that State Senator Stace Nelson was telling a few gathered for the special session that he has not ruled out a run for Governor yet, which might explain why he and Lora Hubbel continue to bicker, since they would likely be splitting the hard right vote in the race.  (If you recall, that catfight began back in April.)

We’ll see in coming months if there’s an actual plan behind the comment, or if it was just talk.

I’ve mentioned that Neal Tapio will likely jump into the congressional race, but today I’d heard from a couple of sources that State Representative Lynne DiSanto may have her eye on a higher soapbox.  The person I spoke with was noting they’d heard Congress or Secretary of State.

Congress seems unlikely, especially given her hosting of an event for Shantel Krebs.  However, if DiSanto has her eyes on running for Secretary of State, her hosting of the event for Krebs comes into clear focus, since doing a solid for the person currently in the office is a good way to ingratiate herself if she’s potentially seeking an endorsement.

If DiSanto goes on that path, she’s have to contend with State Auditor Steve Barnett who has already announced his intention to run for SOS.

It would not be surprising to see others enter any of the statewide contests we have for 2018, as there’s still an abundance of time left for serious candidates to get in, especially for the constitutional races.

As the saying goes, where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. And with political rumors, we may be seeing the earliest signs of movement for candidates to jump into the races.

Thune Statement on CBO’s Report on the Senate Health Care Discussion Draft

“Today’s Congressional Budget Office report confirms that the Senate health care bill will soon start lowering premiums for millions of Americans …”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement regarding the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the Senate health care discussion draft:

“Today’s Congressional Budget Office report confirms that the Senate health care bill will soon start lowering premiums for millions of Americans relative to the unsustainable premium increases under the broken Obamacare system,” said Thune. “This legislation does away with the burdensome Obamacare mandates and taxes affecting the middle class and hardworking families — giving Americans the freedom to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs. The bill stabilizes insurance markets collapsing under Obamacare, improves the affordability of health insurance, preserves care for those with pre-existing conditions, and ensures those on Medicaid don’t have the rug pulled out from under them. Americans have suffered under Obamacare for long enough. This bill will enable them to access more affordable, patient-centered health care.”

###

Here’s a story coming out of the special session that I hadn’t heard.  Apparently, there were a number of senators who were not very happy at the double-barreled motion coming at the start of the recent special session.

What set things into consternation? It was over the vote for President Pro Tempore:

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

    Sen. Curd moved that the Senate do now proceed with the organization of the Senate.    Which motion prevailed.    Sen. Curd moved that Sen. Brock L. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

The question being on Sen. Curd’s motion that Sen. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

And the roll being called:    Yeas 27, Nays 6, Excused 2, Absent 0

Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Frerichs; Greenfield (Brock); Haverly; Jensen (Phil); Kennedy; Killer; Klumb; Kolbeck; Langer; Maher; Monroe; Nelson; Nesiba; Novstrup; Russell; Stalzer; Sutton; Tapio; Tidemann; White; Wiik; Youngberg

Nays:
Heinert; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Rusch; Soholt; Solano

Excused:
Netherton; Peters

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried.

Read that here.

Why was this mundane vote a bit contentious? Look at the language:

The question being on Sen. Curd’s motion that Sen. Greenfield be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Ninety-second Legislative Session and the Ninety-third Legislative Session.

This motion didn’t simply elect the President Pro Tempore for the Special Session. It purported to elect him for both the special session and the session starting in January, and there were those who didn’t care for it, and it became a point of contention.

If we look at the State House, a similar motion met with no dissent in that chamber:

Rep. Qualm moved that the following officers of the regular Ninety-second Legislative Session: Speaker of the House G. Mark Mickelson and Speaker Pro tempore Don Haggar, who are now present be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session and for the regular Ninety-third Legislative Session.

The question being on Rep. Qualm’s motion that the Speaker of the House and the Speaker Pro tempore officers of the regular Ninety-second Legislative Session be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session and for the regular Ninety-third Legislative Session.

And the roll being called:

Yeas 66, Nays 0, Excused 4, Absent 0

Yeas:
Ahlers; Anderson; Bartels; Bartling; Beal; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Carson; Chase; Clark; Conzet; Dennert; Duvall; Frye-Mueller; Glanzer; Goodwin; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar; Haugaard; Hawley; Heinemann; Holmes; Howard; Hunhoff; Jamison; Jensen (Kevin); Johns; Johnson; Kaiser; Karr; Kettwig; Latterell; Lesmeister; Livermont; Lust; Marty; May; McCleerey; McPherson; Mills; Otten (Herman); Peterson (Kent); Peterson (Sue); Pischke; Qualm; Rasmussen; Reed; Rhoden; Ring; Rounds; Rozum; Schoenfish; Smith; Soli; Steinhauer; Stevens; Tulson; Turbiville; Wiese; Willadsen; Wismer; York; Zikmund; Speaker Mickelson

Excused:
DiSanto; Lake; Schaefer; Tieszen

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the Secretary of State declared the Speaker and Speaker Pro tempore duly elected.

Read that here.

From what I’m told, the Director of the Legislative Research Council was supposedly referring to it as a procedural throwback to the years when they would have session every other year. But if we look at how they handled in during the previous special session, they looked at it moving backwards to the previous session, as opposed to looking forward:

House:

Rep. Lust moved that the following officers of the regular Eighty-sixth Legislative Session: Speaker of the House, Val Rausch; Speaker Pro tempore, Brian Gosch; and Chief Clerk of the House, Karen Gerdes; who are now present be declared elected in their respective offices for the Special Session.

Read that here.

Senate:

Sen. Olson moved that Sen. Gray be elected President Pro tempore of the Senate for the Special Session of the Eighty-sixth Legislative Session.

Read that here.

Now, I’ve heard rumors about which this was done, but I’ve also heard that this kerfuffle might have also affected the type of compromise they were bale to hammer out, at least in the Senate.

I’ve heard they had to look forward because they had adjourned sine die from the previous session, but, if we use that line of logic, then didn’t they adjourn the same way from the special session?

The legislative rules looked back to those passed in the prior session for their structure…

Your Joint-Select Committee appointed on joint rules respectfully reports that it has had under consideration the joint rules and recommends that the joint rules of the Ninety-second Legislative Session be adopted with the following exceptions:

and as it applies to elections (per the constitution)..

Art. III, Sec. 9, Par. 3. Rules of proceedings–Officers and employees. EACH HOUSE SHALL DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, SHALL CHOOSE ITS OWN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FIX THE PAY THEREOF, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION.

And in Senate Rules…

CHAPTER 3. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES S3-1. Elective officers. The officers of the Senate are a president pro tempore of the Senate, a secretary of the Senate and such other officers necessary to conduct the business of the Senate, who shall be formally elected by a majority vote of the members-elect of the Senate. Employees necessary to conduct the business of the Senate shall be appointed by the president pro tempore and their appointment shall be announced at the opening of the session.

The question might be contemplated as to whether the rules of the Ninety-second Legislative Session (or Ninety-second and a half) can bind the participants of the Ninety-eighth, and can elections held in the Special Session bind the following session, since they reach a point of adjournment where they close the session.

As noted, ultimately per Article III of the State Constitution, “EACH HOUSE SHALL DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS,” add “SHALL CHOOSE ITS OWN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES..”

If the question is “whether they can elect officers for the next session 6 months early”… the best answer might be “if they feel like it.”

We’ll have to see if they still feel the same in January.

I haven’t seen an invitation yet, but I’m hearing that there’s a big dollar $1000 a head fundraiser coming up in South East South Dakota at McCook Lake or Dakota Dunes in the next couple of weeks for Shantel Krebs as she campaigns for Congress.

If anyone has a copy, send it to me here.