State House confusing governing with campaigning, attempt to hand off power of appointment to political bosses.

Was anyone looking for a solution to a problem that no one is complaining about? Here you go.

An amended Joint Resolution just passed by the House of Representatives is getting ready to go to the Senate with hopes of being placed on the 2020 ballot, despite it literally being guaranteed for defeat at the ballot box.  Not that it mattered.

The Bill started out in its first form declaring that “The Legislature shall provide the manner by which a person may be appointed to fill a vacancy occurring in either house. The person appointed under this section shall be of the same party affiliation, if any, as the person whose vacancy is being filled,” allowing the legislature to pick themselves under a proposed amendment to Article III of the State Constitution.

That changed in House State Affairs, where it was made less clear, but they still left the part in about picking themselves in case of a vacancy.

Then on the House Floor yesterday, it took it’s most recent form, which in some ways is worse than the other two, declaring, “If a vacancy occurs in either house of the Legislature, the central committee of the party with which the vacating person was affiliated shall appoint another to fill the vacancy. If the person had no party affiliation, the vacancy shall be filled by the Governor.”

So, what’s the big problem with this legislation?

The first issue that the authors of this alliance – one between a few Republicans and a significant percentage of legislative Democrats – is that this measure doesn’t seem to know the difference between campaigning and governing.

Now, before you start trying to cast me as anti-political party, perish the thought. I believe in the right of association, and am a big fan of political parties in the process. I do believe that local party organizations should have every right to replace the candidates they offer as candidates for office under the current legal framework should a vacancy arise in the course of the campaign.

But after the election, where is the hue and cry in the state calling for a new way to make legislative appointments? Oh, there isn’t one? Exactly.

During the campaign, it’s entirely proper for the political parties to fill the vacancies that may arise on the ballot in the run up to the fall election. But when it comes to elections that have already been held, I’m not sure why they feel they need to kick it back to organizations set up for political campaigning – especially when each political party has multiple counties that are unorganized.

So, how does that work when there would be a vacancy in a district that has no county party organization? According to this language, in either case, we don’t have to worry about it, because it would be chosen by the state political party of the legislator who left.

Really?

This is exactly like the awful “party boss” amendment Democrats proposed back in 2015 when they couldn’t fill all their legislative seats.  If it was a bad decision to let Democrats talk us into letting party bosses pick candidates in 2015, it’s an even worse decision in 2019 to have them pick legislators.

And I have to give the House a hard time for thinking it’s not.

And then there’s the other problem:

§ 3.   Powers and duties of the Governor. The Governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the law. He may, by appropriate action or proceeding brought in the name of the state, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty or right by any officer, department or agency of the state or any of its civil divisions. This authority shall not authorize any action or proceedings against the Legislature….

The Governor shall commission all officers of the state. He may at any time require information, in writing or otherwise, from the officers of any administrative department, office or agency upon any subject relating to the respective offices….

Whenever a vacancy occurs in any office and no provision is made by the Constitution or laws for filling such vacancy, the Governor shall have the power to fill such vacancy by appointment.

Read that here.

Under Article IV, Section III of our South Dakota State Constitution, our state’s founders had granted with almost total exclusivity to the Governor the power of appointment. This very power that the legislature is wavering between usurping it for itself, or handing it off to political bosses.

Again, who in the public is calling for the legislature to strip away one of the Governor’s Constitutional duties? That would be no one except the legislature.

This is a power grab that I don’t believe voters will stand for. In fact, I would point out that the last time an amendment was proposed to put the legislature on an equal footing with the Executive and Judicial branches, this was the headline (Nov 6, 1974):

“The proposal was billed as a necessary step to put the legislative branch of government on equal footing with the executive and judicial departments, but voters apparently didn’t buy the argument.”

Our parents and grandparents didn’t buy it in 1974 (by about 62% to 38%).

And, sorry. I don’t think we’ll buy it in 2020 either.