SB 69 and SB 177 Petitions Head to Pierre Monday; SB 69 Lawsuit Not Liberal Plot

In a week consisting mostly of responding to remarkable political news with regurgitated press releases from its patrons instead of any original analysis, Dakota War College limps forward with a question about opposition to Senate Bill 69 based on assumption and error. “Is SB69 lawsuit a stop gap effort because they know referral isn’t going to happen?” DWC’s Pat Powers asks:

The discussion centered around an assumption that the movement to refer Senate Bill 69 (which in part was designed to make South Dakota more compliant with federal mandates to allow at least 45 days for military voting) is likely not going to be successful one, and may fall short of it’s [sic] goals. The talk was that, recognizing that likely outcome, the liberal powers that be decided to move forward with the lawsuit in an attempt to take up another front against the clean-up legislation [Pat Powers, “Is SB69 Lawsuit a Stop Gap Effort Because They Know Referral Isn’t Going to Happen?Dakota War College, 2015.06.26].

Let’s count the errors:

  1. Some friends and I will walk into Secretary of State Shantel Krebs’s office on Monday around 11:00 or 11:30 (depending on how many last-minute sheets we need to notarize) to submit two referral petitions—one for Senate Bill 69, the Incumbent Protection Plan that Powers so loves, and one for Senate Bill 177, the youth minimum wage. I will sign an affidavit swearing that, to the best of my knowledge, the sheets for each petition “contain a sufficient number of signatures to be certified to the ballot.” Whether Team Krebs’s 5% sampling of those signatures produces an error rate that throws out too many signatures is unknowable, although I want to believe that the circulators of these petitions have run a tight ship.
  2. There are no “liberal powers that be.” What state are we living in again, Pat?
  3. Liberals did not decide to file the lawsuit against Senate Bill 69. The plaintiffs are the Libertarian and Constitution parties of South Dakota, two groups that exist as a response to the South Dakota Republican Party’s failure to be conservative enough.
  4. The lawsuit cannot be considered a “stop-gap” measure. “Stop gap” implies a temporary measure taken in anticipation of some subsequent permanent solution. The lawsuit is not a placeholder or a delaying tactic; it is a challenge to one clearly unconstitutional provision of SB 69 that seeks to make it harder for new parties to challenge the existing powers that be.
  5. Senate Bill 69 has nothing to do with military voting. Powers trotted out that myth in May for lack of anything good to say about Senate Bill 69’s attack on voting rights. Military voting was not part of the genesis or discussion of Senate Bill 69. Senate Bill 69 arose from concerns about the petition fraud committed by Annette Bosworth and Clayton Walker during the 2014 primary. Senate Bill 69 contains no provisions to guarantee or expand military voting rights.
  6. Senate Bill 69 is not “clean-up legislation”… unless Powers means it helps incumbents clean up at the polls. Senate Bill 69 dirties up our statutes with unconstitutional violations of the rights of new parties and voters who want to support Independents. Senate Bill 69 dirties Christmas by pushing candidate petition circulation back into December. Senate Bill 69 dirties democracy by deterring major-party candidates with unnecessary increases in the number of signatures they must collect to make the ballot. These provisions do nothing to clean up the mess of petition fraud and only deter candidates and voters from participating in the democracy this bill soils.

DWC’s misportrayal of Senate Bill 69 and the efforts to stop it are predictable. Powers has never understood Senate Bill 69. He is only propagandizing on behalf of his patrons and not trying to help South Dakotans understand the harm this bill does to democracy.

See you in Pierre on Monday!


21 Responses to SB 69 and SB 177 Petitions Head to Pierre Monday; SB 69 Lawsuit Not Liberal Plot

  1. Some would hope that the angry, vindictive, Chinese buffet king, second grade bully over at the fake blog has a shred of credibility or good will. That’s simply not the case. He gets shown the door time after time by thinking guests at his site. I go there occasionally – waiting and waiting and waiting for his site to load while enjoying several articles on the Dakota Free Press site.

    Then in an effort to save the sphincter’s hide, the great pontificator Troy Jones likes to step in and mansplain all the twisted concepts so popular there. Though Mr. Jones give his best efforts to help the visitors over their understand, his ramblings are mostly no more than randomly-spewed piles of ….. dogma.

    No one could speak higher of Pat Powers than me and I think he’s an angry, vindictive, Chinese buffet king, second grade bully. But I do RESPECT the way he can put away that Chinese buffet food at the little Chinese buffet in Brookings.

  2. Donald Pay

    You have to wonder why Powers is still read by anyone with intelligence. The piece begins with this: “I was speaking to a few politicos the other day….” Yeah, I was taking a poop the other day, too, but I don’t pretend that once it hits the bowl they are “politicos.”

    Not one name is mentioned, of course, so you we have to wonder whether these were real people, or just the floaters. Maybe they are the sinkers, or the stinkers. We know they are Republicans.

  3. Great work there rwb, I liked the way you sugar coated your indigestion regarding Pat Powers. I do not go to his site as I would not like the pukey feeling one gets from to much of the MSG or More Silly Garbage from the right wing, are not they both the same?

  4. Jerry, I wish DWC would blog with the credibility and good will RWB rightly seeks. The South Dakota Blogosphere would be stronger with more honest and original analysis and engagement from the right wing. Instead, DWC provides nothing but press releases, innuendo, and strained excuses for the party line.

    Senate Bill 69 is a great example of the failing of DWC. The public could use honest information and debate on SB 69. It could use real analysis from both sides, not just from me. But DWC has never viewed 69 as an important bill worthy of full discussion. DWC views 69 merely as another excuse for misinforming, partisan hit pieces.

  5. We live in a world of instant communication. Why can’t the military vote electronically to a data bank in the state capital that could then process the vote and send it to the district that the soldier came from? Or better yet, have the districts have the capability to accept those overseas votes, the vote would be tabulated just like early voting here in the state. To say that they are trying to preserve the military vote is very disingenuous. It is clear what they are trying to sell, more dishonesty and more corruption.

  6. Jerry, I think we could come up with an electronic voting (and petitioning!) system that is at least as secure as our current paper ballot system, and a whole lot faster. Let’s get SB 69 on the ballot, vote its anti-democratic reforms down, and replace it with some real reforms that make elections and petitions easier to participate in and easier to verify.

  7. Deb Geelsdottir

    Hahahahahahahaha! “liberal powers that be.” Hahahahahahahaha!

  8. If anyone sees the liberal powers that be, please tell them to call me. I’d love to interview and photograph them.

  9. larry kurtz

    Justice Gilbertson is highest ranking Democrat in South Dakota, right?

  10. Larry asks:
    >“Justice Gilbertson is highest ranking Democrat in South Dakota, right?”

    Perhaps technically, but Cory may be the most powerful. :-)

  11. Bob Newland

    Yes, Cory. You are the liberal power that bes.

  12. Kim Wright

    As an Independent who strives to see change in South Dakota, I have confidence in all SD voters that this Unconstitutional bill will be defeated…thanks for your activism Cory!!

  13. Roger Cornelius

    Cory, like President Obama has been kicking some serious butt this week.

    Congratulations to both.

  14. Hey Kurt, are you going to primary John Thune running as a GOPer or will you wait until the general and run in some other political party?

    And, btw: Cory ain’t the powers that be by any measure of South Dakota politics.

  15. Thank you, Kim! We need activism like yours to mobilize Independent voters to stand up for their rights. Registering Independent shouldn’t be a signal that one is withdrawing from politics; Independents should be doubly engaged in the system to make up for the absence of the party structures and the favors for themselves those parties write into our electoral laws.

  16. I lean toward Larry’s assessment: I operate from the assumption that I have little if any power. But I’m working on getting everyone else to realize their own power and trying to convince them to work with me to do something about the powers that be.

  17. Douglas Wiken

    Cory, sorry I was unable to get signatures for your petitions. Local events burned my time. Hopefully, I can help more before the election on other aspects of this.

  18. Next time, Douglas! Keep your walking shoes handy!

  19. Douglas Wiken

    Hey Bob Newland, take a look at last WIRED magazine and story “Boy Lost”. A story to nearly make your eyes water with the results of a British drug derived from marijuana.

  20. Larry Kurtz asks:
    >“Hey Kurt, are you going to primary John Thune running as a GOPer or will you wait until the general and run in some other political party?”

    Barring an unforeseen change of plans, neither. I’m running as an independent candidate.