So there’s chatter amongst legislators tonight…

@SoDakCampaigns

Had a call on this one a short time ago.. supposedly, the Legislative chatter tonight is that someone may make an effort to nominate Jon Hansen in as speaker tomorrow, despite his defeat in House caucus elections this past November.

I’m hearing text messages are flying on the topic, so we’ll see what comes of it.

Nobody is ‘fessing up on who is trying to be the “Matt Gaetz” of the South Dakota Legislature. But as one Legislator quipped to me, “It’s a fools errand and they’ll look stupid.”

Whomever is plotting might be betting on Democrat support to upset the result of the Republican Caucus elections. But with Hansen leading an effort against a Democrat-led abortion related ballot measure, I somehow doubt Democrats would want to raise his profile.

We’ll see if it goes any further tomorrow. But that’s what I’m hearing tonight.

**Update**

I’m hearing further that, supposedly, 2 House members approached Democrats and as anticipated, they were denied. As was pointed out, they have absolutely no chance of turning out Speaker Hugh Bartels, and it should be noted that they didn’t know if Hansen was even in on it.

With the GOP State Chairmanship race this weekend fluidly changing as challengers figure out they just don’t have the votes, this is just another failed trial balloon from the extreme hard right trying to be in charge as they are denied at every turn.

23 thoughts on “So there’s chatter amongst legislators tonight…”

    2. This post is causing a lot of ruckus in its short time on earth, much like Matt Gaetz’s girlfriends. If that joke bugs you, ask yourself why Matt Gaetz doesn’t.

    3. Yes. He is a legend….in his own mind. Most of us see him as a grandstander who is positioning himself for higher office.

  3. Already dividing the caucus to start trouble? The vote was taken, and a winner was chosen. Hugh Barrels is the speaker! Move on.

  4. Already dividing the caucus to start trouble? The vote was taken, and a winner was chosen. Hugh Bartels is the speaker! Move on.

  5. Absolutely nothing wrong in being humbled anytime while on this earth. It just gets a whole lot harder when it is front page news.

    And just to lay it out where it truly lies. Ask all of South Dakota who is Speaker of the SD House? What percentage would have a clue? 10% ?

    Flip that to Governor and it would hit 95%.

  6. Trump used to talk about winning, winning, winning. Said we’d get tired of winning. The Haugaard/Howard/Phil wing has taken that second part to the next level. Clearly sick of winning, all they do is lose, lose, lose. And whine, whine, whine! And they do so publicly, in grand fashion, for all to see.

    1. Not to mention that to lose, you have to at least show up. The Wackadoodles can’t even manage that.

  7. If this “democrat led” ballot measures passes, does that mean our state is mostly democrats? The rhetoric used in the article shows too much bias. Not every issue has to be black and white, this rhetoric just helps justify the hostile reversal of democratically derived decisions such as ballot initiates in 2016, and 2020. Call them what you want, but I will always support the will of the people over the inner party who feels they can make decisions for people and invalidate their vote. It will take more than calling something “Democrat” for me to give up my rights, too bad we don’t have more principled free thinkers in our state, if we did, they wouldn’t be able to pull this crap year after year with no consequence.

      2. Ahhh, such a tired line, which I disagree with for the 2020 amendment A. Only inner party hacks would think medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are two separate issues. The current SD Supreme Court’s interpretation of the single subject rule invalidates the constitutional amendment process, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I can’t even come up with an example of something that would be one subject with their interpretation. This will come to a head if the right to abortion is also overturned. Then we can maybe get rid of this amendment (Amendment Z passed in 2018) that has been taken advantage of by the inner party and their court.

        As noted above, amendment Z (single subject rule) was not even voted for until 2018, which I assume is your lazy assessment on why the 2016 ballot measures are considered unconstitutional, by you. However, if you could elaborate on how Measure 22 or Amendment S was unconstitutional, I am listening!

        1. ‘Only inner party hacks would think medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are two separate issues.’

          So I guess according to you, there would be no difference between a medical need for valium and recreational use of valium? Great logic genius.

          1. I can’t tell if you are trolling, or are just this stupid.

            What you stated is a false equivalence logical fallacy, and if logic were used, the bill would say all Valium is legal for both recreation and medicinal. Then you would say those are two different subjects, I would still disagree the subject is deregulation of Valium, not how it is used, which I feel is subjective.

            Great job at ignoring how much of a genius you look with the 2016 “UnCoNSTiTutIoNaL” claim.

              2. False; both were changed in the legislature. Only one was put on “hold”, but changed by law and signed by the governor.

Comments are closed.