State Representative and (2%) Gubernatorial candidate Jon Hansen was in court this week, except he found himself on the witness stand testifying over efforts that the opposing counsel claimed illustrate Hansen’s desire to restrict citizen lawmaking:
The candidate is Jon Hansen, who serves as speaker of the state House of Representatives and is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in next June’s primary election. He convinced his fellow legislators to pass a bill during the winter that makes the window for gathering ballot-question petition signatures three months shorter, by moving the election-year deadline for submitting signed petitions from May to February.
and..
Several times during witness testimony, Leach pointed to bills Hansen has sponsored during his legislative career to restrict citizen lawmaking.
During this year’s legislative session, for example, Hansen prime-sponsored the bill to shorten the signature-gathering period and also prime-sponsored a bill adding justifications for the secretary of state to reject petition signatures, both of which passed. He co-sponsored a bill vetoed by the governor that would have required constitutional amendment petitions to have signatures from registered voters in each of the 35 state Senate districts. Existing law allows signatures to come from registered voters anywhere in the state.
The state’s lawyer, in response, asked Hansen if he’s opposed to the initiative process or wants to repeal it. Hansen answered no to both questions.
Pay attention folks, the far right wants power and minority control. They started with county GOP’s now they want to whittle away at our constitution. It’s about autocratic control.
No to popular vote for constitutional offices
No to open primaries
No to refereed laws, and of course,
No to refereed laws passed by the people.
Don’t buy the “for the people” sloganeering!
In fact Republicans have been overturning the will of SD voters for decades.
The far right is terrible, but I agree with you here. Why is Noem overturning what the people voted for good and Hansen doing it bad? The cognitive dissonance people have here is nuts.
The best part, “Leach, during his questioning of Hansen, methodically attacked the stalling allegation. Relying on records from the earlier lawsuit, Leach showed, for example, that he sometimes took less time to file his motions and responses than Hansen’s side did — forcing Hansen to admit that those examples reflected Leach’s promptness. Leach also showed that Hansen’s lead co-counsel in the earlier case, Sara Frankenstein, told the judge at one point that she had no availability during a three-week period, forcing Hansen to answer “yes” when Leach asked if that slowed down the case.”
Stay tuned for Sara’s turn August 8th.
Not sure how that is relevant to the case at hand but it is certainly a pretty big red flag that Leach is reaching deep grasping at straws. Timeframes to have things filed are either set by state law or a judge. And if the court emailed me right now asking to schedule something, I wouldn’t be able to put anything on the calendar until almost the end of July. I don’t agree with all of Mr. Hansen’s political stances and have a long list of issues with the base of his supporters. But this is just a horrible argument to make.
Did you read the article? The state’s attorney is arguing that Hansen brought the bill because Leach was delaying the trial, but when faced with evidence that it was Life Defense Fund’s lead attorney that was delaying the trial, Hansen had to agree. That’s why it’s relevant.
I’m surprised Hansen appeared without Sara. Where can we listen to the hearing?
Reaping what the voters sowed.
This appears to not be a “Hansen-only” problem. There are a LOT of Repbulcian legislators who want to make it harder for citizens to directly participate in their government.