Today’s new word is “emendation.” Nelson dissent returned for correction.

Pat Powers

Remember last week’s Senator Stace Nelson tantrum over the passage of House Bill 1069 in the State Senate?  As noted in the legislative journal:

The question being “Shall HB 1069 pass as amended?”

Sen. Nelson rose to a point of order invoking J.R. 12-1 and Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure Section 521, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The President ruled against the Point of Order.

And the roll being called:

Sen. Nelson rose to a point of order invoking Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure Section 522, paragraph 1.

The President ruled against the Point of Order.

Sen. Nelson appealed the ruling of the President.

The ruling of the President was sustained.

Yeas 27, Nays 8, Excused 0, Absent 0    Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Greenfield (Brock); Haverly; Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Kolbeck; Langer; Maher; Monroe; Netherton; Novstrup; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Stalzer; Tapio; Tidemann; White; Wiik; Youngberg

Nays:
Frerichs; Heinert; Kennedy; Killer; Nelson; Nesiba; Russell; Sutton

So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

Sens. Nelson and Russell announced their intention to file a letter of dissent and protest pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.

DISSENT AND PROTEST TO PASSAGE OF HB 1069

Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the rulings of the President of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Matthew Michels, in ruling against Senator Nelson’s point of orders that 17 Senate members be excused from voting due to their personal conflict of interest in the legislation to overturn IM22 due to their admitted public record of personal pecuniary interest in a lawsuit to overturn IM22, violating Joint Rule 12-1 and Section 521 (2)(3) & Section 522 (1) of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (enacted as SD Legislative Joint rules via Joint Rule 11-3). Lt. Gov. Michels’ ruling, in the face of such conflict of interests, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, and besmirches the reputation of the South Dakota Senate. Furthermore, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest the passage of House Bill 1069 in that it clearly violates Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution (which 17 Senators acknowledge in section 10 of their lawsuit contesting the mirror image of HB1069, IM22 was unconstitutional for violating this constitutional provision) states: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” Members voted to pass House Bill 1069 knowing that provisions of it contained sections which require citizens to declare their names, address, etc., on campaign material, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled explicitly violates persons’ 1st Amendment rights (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)). We therefore believe that the passage of House Bill 1069 is in contravention of both the United States Constitution, South Dakota’s Constitution, and is therefore null and void. We thus dissent from, and protest against, the erroneous rulings, the unconstitutional aspects of House Bill 1069, and the appearances of improprieties used to pass House Bill 1069. We respectfully request that this dissent and protest be printed in the Senate Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.
Respectfully submitted,                        Respectfully submitted,
Senator Stace Nelson                            Senator Lance Russell

Sens. Sutton and Heinert announced their intention to file a letter of dissent and protest pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.

Read that here.

After attacking his colleagues in the Journal, from there, Senator Nelson clucked around like a rooster, and penned a self-serving and fairly ego-inflated editorial about how he was right, and others were corrupt.

Coming around the following week, on Monday, some of his fellow legislators decided they didn’t exactly agree with his dissenting opinion in the matter. And they sent it back for a correction:

From the Legislative Journal for yesterday’s proceedings:

And you can listen to the non-debatable motion, which was supported by a majority of members of the State Senate, and quickly disposed of.

The full text of the rule reads:

1-10. Dissent against an act or resolution. Any two members of a house may dissent or protest in respectful language against any act or resolution which they think injurious to the public or to any individual and have the reason for their dissent or protest entered upon the journal. However, if an objection is made that the language of the dissent or protest is not respectful, a majority of the house may refer the dissent or protest back to the dissenting or protesting members for emendation.

So, because the language in the dissent was not considered respectful, the dissent has now been sent back to the dissenting members for “emendation,”  or as President of the Senate Matt Michels noted, it’s a fancy word for amendment.

And as related to me, using the rule that Nelson invoked to file the dissent in the first place, the referral back to the dissenting members sent Nelson for quite the loop. So much so, that he had even voted for the omnibus water bill.. one of those omnibus bills that he regularly rejects as not being constitutional.

And after session, there were reports of Nelson chewing on the President of the Senate, Senate Secretaries, and even the Executive Director of LRC trying to figure out what happened.

So yesterday’s new word of the day is “emendation.”  A new word that Senator Nelson is not going to forget anytime soon.

30 thoughts on “Today’s new word is “emendation.” Nelson dissent returned for correction.”

  2. Reminds me of the time Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR) was attempting to use rules to delay or defeat a bill. Don’t remember the specifics.

    Anyway, Sen. Storm Thurmond (R-SC) was the President Pro Temp and presiding. After the second or third time Hatfields efforts were defeated, Hatfield stood for another motion, Thurmond said in his dry Southern drawl (my best recollection): “Before I recognize my good friend, the good Senator from Oregon, I want to remind the body that I am the judge and jury and am willing to be the executioner. (Long pause as he stared at Hatfield). Thank you Good Senator for taking your seat. Do I hear a motion to move the question?”

  3. One other story along the same lines. Southerners were really good at this.

    I don’t remember the other Senator for sure. Something in my head tells me it was Senator Percy so I’m going to use him. I apologize if I’m off. I’m pretty sure Senator Hollins was the other Senator.

    Anyway, after Senator Percy had been rather disagreeable, Senator Hollins stood and asked for a point of personal privilege and said (again in a slow Southern drawl):

    “My fellow Senators my wife caught that bug going around the Capitol and she hasn’t been feeling very good. And, when she isn’t feeling good, I can be rather hard to get along with so I want to apologize for how I’ve been the last few days. My wife is better now. Senator Percy, we’all hope Mrs. Percy gets better soon.”

  4. How smart is it for them to bring this back up and allow him to beat them up again over this issue???

      1. I agree. The legislature has already shown that they don’t have a plan to do anything about an ethics commission with anything other than a minimal effort. Pretty disappointed.

  5. Michels is playing games. Peters is out of order. The time to raise their concerns was when it was moved. They approved of the dissent when they approved the journal. This is stupid.

    3. But this is totally indicative of the kind of shenanigans a legislature without enough to do will engage in. Almost the first order of business this year was to repeal an initiative that the electorate–which is mostly Republican–passed. South Dakota’s Legislature could meet biennially for 25 days at a shot and we’d do just fine.

  6. He acted the same way in the House . He wants to feel importent & throws a tantrum when he ends up being impotent instead . He is a blowhard clown who lets Russell pull his strings .

  7. Stace probably needs to learn how to work with others and other probably need to learn to ignore him. The more they react to him the more he gets out of it. This is a bad move by giving him more reason to huff and puff.

    At some point someone must realize that he is just the way he is. The more attention he gets the more he acts out. Don’t give him any attention and he won’t act up so much.

    1. He can be like that kid screaming in the grocery store because he didn’t get any candy. If he gets attention for it he’ll keep screaming. If you walk away from him he will quiet down.

  8. So Senator Peters joins in a lawsuit against IM22 because it makes certain of her actions illegal. Senator Peters votes to overturn said law. Senator Nelson cries foul, and now Peters is claiming Nelson gave her the bird. So the Senate majority is saying Nelson has to be emendable and use a different finger when pointing out legislators who vote to legalize corruption? Or is the attitude more like there is no corruption once it is legalize, so shut up Nelson. And if you don’t, we will start a crusade to marginalize you with personal attacks. Oh how I miss going to Pierre.

  9. I wish I could be there the day that Michels decides to tie that blowhard into knots. Stacy has no idea how out-brained he is when he takes on the president of the Senate.

  10. Stace is running for governor. I don’t care if the rest of you haven’t figured it out yet. I don’t care if he hasn’t announced it yet. These performances are for his fans. He can write op-eds every week convincing the public that Pierre is rife with corruption and he is the only person to clean it up. Look at his Facebook page, his fans are urging him to run.
    Ignoring him and hoping he goes away is a mistake. He’s not going away.

    1. Maybe Howie’s still got that RV (if it hasn’t been sold to pay his back property taxes) he can loan Stace. They can call it the 3% Express!

    2. Good then he can replace him with a Senator that will get something done for that district….

      …and then 3rd place Stace in a 3 man race will be LAST PLACE STACE

    3. Hahaha. I saw ONE person mention Stace running for governor; seconded only by…that same person. Only in his own, delusional mind are his “fans” urging him to run. He definitely could not do better than 3rd place again.

      1. I, for one, would like to see Mr. Nelson run for Governor. What entertainment!

        It is funny to see Mr. Michels use his big brain to mock Mr. Nelson’s big ego.

  11. Anon 5:32 just in case you are listening but not hearing anything; the SD Senate just smacked Senator Nelson in a way few ever remember after the next election from the same seat. Absolutely Trumpesque but Stace Nelson is no Donald Trump. That would require actually fixing a problem instead of creating multiple ones.

      1. Mr. Sibson, why don’t you go to Pierre any more? Are you banned, or afraid? I submit it would be very good for you to sit in the bleachers for many of these discussions and even lend your keen mind to the lobbyist endeavors. Did Mr. Michels ban you?

Comments are closed.