I had forgotten about this until one until I started doing a search of campaign finance reports. If you recall long, long ago during the races of 2012…. Long before we elected Mike Rounds to the US Senate, and no one had any idea who Annette Bosworth was…
As I chronicled in November 2012, a pair of postcards his mailboxes right before the election in the District where Stace Nelson was running, as well as District 9, where Paula Hawks was running, where a Democrat front group – in an attempt to make their party’s candidates – made them try to seem more “Republican-y”:
Who was one of the people behind all of this? Now Democrat Congressional Candidate Paula Hawks.
As you can see, and as I chronicled back then, Paula Hawks fully contributed half of the funds for the project out of her political campaign account.
It probably doesn’t mean much at this point in the campaign. But as it gets down to the wire, it might be an indicator of the type of deception and dirty tricks we might expect to come out of the Hawks campaign.
No worse than M. Mike Rounds running as a “republican.”
Some people just can’t handle defeat.
In 2014, Mike Rounds ran for U.S. Senate in the Republican primary and Republican primary VOTERS believed the following were the best Republican to represent them as follows:
Mike Rounds: 55.5% (for those who are math impaired, that is a MAJORITY)
Larry Rhoden: 18.2%
Stace Nelson: 17.7%
Annette Bosworth: 5.7%
Jason Ravnsborg: 2.8%
And, then when you consider Rhoden was accused of being a clone of Rounds, 73.7% of Republican primary VOTERS prefer Rounds and his clone as best to represent their values.
When you look at the facts, one might not want to question who is the real Republican.
Troy, you place a lot of stock in VOTERS and I could not agree more with you.
But your expressed position here doesn’t really jibe with your strong and outspoken support of the legislature overturning the will of the VOTERS after the VOTERS had passed the minimum wage law. Just wondering how you many words you will use to wiggle out of that one.
Rounds ran as a conservative Republican. He pledged to get rid of Obamacare, the Dept of Education, etc.
He sold snake oil. Just because he managed to buy the election with special interest monies from outside the state? That doesn’t make him a great Republican.
So what would make a candidate and great Republican?
Actually support Republican principles.
I really don’t care who or what Hawks pretends to be. No one else does either.
I don’t either; when you know what she really stands for, you won’t be suckered in by any feigned intelligence.
Heisenberg.
This is a Democratic Republic. Not a direct democracy.
Troy, the last time I looked at the laws of the great state of South Dakota, there were very specific provisions that do, in fact, make South Dakota a direct democracy if certain conditions are met. I’m sure you have to agree with that as much as you disagree with this foundation of South Dakota’s heritage as a populist state.
So, in a Republican primary election, as you cited earlier, the question is basically “which candidate should be sent to the general election to represent the Republican party?” In South Dakota, unlike other states, there is an election to answer this question. The registered Republican VOTERS answer that question.
In a general election, there are ballot measures that have reached there by virtue of qualifying under South Dakota law – direct democracy. The question before the VOTERS is basically “shall this measure pass or fail?” And if the VOTERS determine a law shall pass or fail, then it does – under the laws of South Dakota.
I’m sure I don’t have to drag you back to sixth grade civics to point this out.
… but then again, maybe I do.
Actually Troy it’s a Federal Republic!!! Helps when you know what you are talking about RINO Troy
Deception and dirty tricks. Did she learn all that from you?
Heisenberg,
I understand that. It is basic. Your point?
Troy,
Point 1 – In your original contribution to this thread you shout that the VOTERS (your emphasis) have determined the question and that the decision should be honored. I agreed with you on that.
BUT when the VOTERS passed a minimum wage law with which you disagreed, you strongly and loudly supported the legislature ignoring the will of the VOTERS. So your original position during the last legislative session is 180 degrees away from your current position.
Point 2 – You then try to explain it away (thankfully, with a minimum of words) by stating – incorrectly – that we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, so that is why it is appropriate for you to support the legislature overturning the will of the VOTERS.
Point 3 – You agree – correctly so – that we do, in fact, live in a direct democracy when certain conditions under South Dakota law are met.
Point 4 – You CAN have it both ways, but you look very much like a hypocrite when you do.
Hawks’ deception is a perfect example of the type of advertising of which we will see even more if the Democrats get their way and remove party names on the ballots for the state legislature, but instead of using the word bipartisan, the Democrats will try to paint themselves as having conservative and/or family values. Then again, we already have many Republicans in Pierre who are liberals who ran under the Republican banner. The voters need to wake up!
Heisenberg,
First, the power to select Republican nominees is solely in the hands of primary voters (unless a nominee vacates the nomination or it is a Constitutional Office chosen at convention).
Second, laws pass by the Legislature/signed by Governor are CO-EQUAL to laws passed by voters in the Initiative or Referendum process. Nothing prevents the voters via Initiative to overturn/change a law passed by the Legislature or vice versa. Only Constitutional Amendments transcend the authority of the Legislature. Thus, both ways (republic and direct) is the law of the land. This is basic civics.
Third, a Legislator is elected to an Office (a position of duty, trust, or authority) to which the legislator is to act in what is both the will of the voters AND that legislator’s best judgment of the public good. If the legislator deems a position is in the public good contrary to what has been passed by the voters, the legislators duty MAY be to overturn/amend the Initiative knowing the voters MAY turn the legislator out of office at the next election. The assertion an Initiative trumps a law passed via the Legislative process implies Initiatives have the same standing of Constitutional Amendments which is specifically contrary to the Constitution.
In summary, Legislators are free to advocate passage of change in law whether passed in a prior Legislature or by prior Initiative of the people. Yes, there may be political and practical considerations when amending an Initiative but that is how the Constitution is written. If a Legislator believes in an income tax despite it being trounced in prior Initiatives, it is that legislators duty to do so AND be prepared to potentially be turned out of office. Same with changes to the minimum wage law. The process of changing laws is laid out in the Constitution. Basic civics.
Troy, I took the basic structure of your initial comment and used the same context. And is sounds pretty good when the context is yours, don’t you think?
Your context:
Some people just can’t handle defeat.
In 2014, an initiated measure appeared on the South Dakota ballot. Enough registered VOTERS had signed petitions to have the measure – South Dakota Initiated Measure 18 – placed on the ballot. More than enough South Dakota registered VOTERS believed it was in the best interest of the state to have the voters ask this question.
YES 55.05% (for those who are math impaired, that is a MAJORITY.)
NO 44.95%
It appeared that the majority of the general election VOTERS preferred the initiative.
So, your response above is a bunch of stuff people already know from sixth grade civics, BUT your perspective does not lie there. And I’ll show you why.
For instance, let’s take a look at the failed 2008 Initiated Measure 11 [55.21% NO and 44.79% YES]. You no-doubt heavily supported the failed initiated measure, even as a self-professed hater of initiated measures and direct democracy. Now HAD the failed initiative passed and then the next session been overturned by the legislature, you would not have been singing praises of the legislature for ignoring the will of the voters. Would you?
If that is true, it is then impossible to give your position on this particular post any credibility whatsoever. Like I said earlier. You CAN have it both ways, but when you do it makes you look like a hypocrite.
My apologies in advance for not responding any further today. I have a lot of work to get done and simply don’t have the time today to guide you out of corner you painted yourself into.
“direct democracy”
Initiated measures are not “direct democracy”.
1. The entire populace does not vote on placing the measure on the ballot.
2. The entire populace does vote on the measure as it appears on the ballot.
3. The entire populace is not ENTITLED to vote on ballot measures.
As TJ has pointed out, the SD Constitution places significant limits on initiated measures so much so that the process cannot be reasonably described as a “direct democracy”.
“2. The entire populace does vote on the measure as it appears on the ballot.”
Correction:
2. The entire populace does NOT vote on the measure as it appears on the ballot.
Kaboom!
Troy : 8:39 AM your post spells out what political debate is all about. My previous post used one word in describing the ramifications of following and believing in SD Statutes. Go Trump!!!!
Heisenberg,
Try as you want to paint me into a corner. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the State which grants power co-equally to make and amend law via Initiative and via the legislative process. I’m comfortable with both and the potential for tension between them.
As an individual citizen, I can agree or disagree with laws passed via either process and I can pursue whatever remedy I want. So can you. And, we both get to live with the outcome unless the outcome is changed via either process.
Now, back to my original point. Republican voters have exclusive prerogative to choose the Republican nominee they want. That choice is significantly more credible than an anonymous poster who wants to assert Rounds isn’t a Republican when 55% of actual voters actually said otherwise.
P.S. I really don’t care if I have credibility with you. I’m sure you feel the same way with regard to you having credibility with me.
Rounds is a Republican. Rounds isn’t a constitutional conservative. Few Republicans are.
Troy, fair enough. I know you enjoy plenty of credibility in this forum and that’s well-deserved because you devote a lot of your valuable time to it.
I believe you are an honorable and good man and I do respect that and always will.
We will disagree on many points, but I think we DO agree that it’s important to hash these issues out and challenge each other’s paradigms. I am grateful for your willingness to take the time to do that.
Pretending to be conservative works for Kristi.