I like the Stace Nelson/Gordon Howie/Lora Hubbel wing of the South Dakota Republican Party. I keep hoping they’ll get serious and run a viable statewide candidate who can put the screws to the establishment wing of their party for acting like crony capitalists instead of adhering to the real conservative principles of the Republican Party.
If you’re not raising money, you’re not organizing. And you don’t finance campaigns with gimmicks like flipping houses or raffles or anything else. You mail, call, and knock on the doors of everyone on your mailing list and ask for money. You expand you mailing list and ask those people, too. You get hundreds of people to literally invest in your campaign, thank them profusely, spend that money wisely, then show them what real work you’ve done with their money and ask for more.
If you really want to root out corruption, Lora, you’ve got to have money to get out the word and get people to vote for you. Forget the houses; start stamping envelopes and making calls!
SDPB mentions Lora Hubbel’s run for governor and gives her a chance to stir vague fears of growing danger in South Dakota:
“What propels me is what I see happening to South Dakota is dangerous for my grandkids. It’s dangerous for people seeking healthcare,” Hubbel says. “I just see a foreboding scene coming on the horizon if South Dakota keeps going in the direction that they are. I think they need to change” [Lee Strubinger, “Former State Representative Hubbel Running for Governor,” SDPB Radio, 2017.07.10].
What, Common Core is going to kill your grandkids? Sanford and Avera are going to give you the wrong pills? Who knows what fear the fringe-Right will holler about. And since the fringe-Right is kind of bad at collecting petition signatures and fielding viable candidates, we may never know.
Unfortunately, that subtle message may be outshouted by his family’s support for Donald Trump and Lora Hubbel. Last September his wife Kayla (proudly displayed in Kaleb’s campaign photo, so we can only assume he welcomes her as a partner in his campaign) added a photo of herself proudly sporting a Trump sticker as her Facebook profile pic:
At 10 am tomorrow (March 24) at Zion Luthern Church in Aberdeen there will be a meeting with a US Attorney and a “Loretta Lynch appointed” Civil Rights Attorney.
How is it that citizens in Aberdeen concerned about the status of refugees and the identification of illegals in their midst are left out of this meeting? Yet those who are opposed to the failures and negative incidents that have happened in Aberdeen do NOT get an invitation to be there?
Where are the statistics and media reporting about the crimes committed in their city by those brought in as refugees/illegals/secondary migration? Will anyone come forward to help Aberdeen and listen to the people? Will our Governor’s office or Attorney General’s office come to the aid of Aberdeen’s concerned citizens, who have had legitimate negative encounters and hence feel unsafe in their own community? Has someone turned the lights out in South Dakota and now everyone must run around in the dark on the issue of refugee resettlement and illegals in our cities and towns? We have a responsibility to our South Dakota families and especially Aberdeen to fully vet every refugee and immigrant we place in our great state.
Of special note: There is a tape of a high ranking LSS official stating she does NOT and CANNOT currently vet all these people coming in because for some there is no government in place from which to retrieve documents. In that case “vetting” is based solely on the word of those wanting to come into our country. We need to stand behind President Trump in his efforts to keep America Safe. Let us pray that this is not “human trafficking” of a different sort by placing displaced people in South Dakota where some do not want to assimilate [Kayla Weis, posted to Aberdeen Online Rummage Sale Facebook group, 2017.03.23; adapted from Lora Hubbel, public Facebook post, 2017.03.23].
Hmm… your spouse criticizes local institutions by implicating them in some vast “human trafficking” conspiracy, and then you feature that spouse in your campaign materials as you run for city office? I hope Kaleb Weis will explain that on his “Learn More” page… when he gets around to posting it.
I don’t want to ride Rep. Jim Stalzer (R-11/Sioux Falls) too hard. He wasn’t scheduled to speak at last night’s ballot question forum in Sioux Falls. Rep. Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton) was supposed to speak against Amendment T, the independent redistricting proposal, but yesterday’s rain flooded Rep. Bolin’s basement. Rep. Stalzer filled in for Rep. Bolin on very short notice. I respect Rep. Stalzer for accepting that challenge.
Unfortunately, Rep. Stalzer responded to that challenge with some misleading howlers.
Even though Rep. Stalzer did not participate in the last redistricting, in 2011, Rep. Stalzer said he talked with several members of the committee of legislators who drew their own boundaries in 2011. He asserted that the committee followed “the primary criterion” of respecting city limits, county lines, and other existing boundaries and not “how many Republicans, how many Democrats” resided in certain areas:
Rep. Stalzer, would you care to look at the maps around Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Aberdeen and explain how all those squiggly lines represent any effort to maintain geographical or community integrity? Can you tell us how Democrats get concentrated into Sioux Falls District 15, how Rapid City’s American Indian population gets dispersed among districts, and how Chuck Welke and Burt Elliott get separated from their Brown County base without the 2011 redistricting commission looking at specific addresses and voter affiliation?
Rep. Stalzer also repeated the crocodile-tear concern that Amendment T does not require equal representation of all parties on the independent redistricting commission. Farmers Union spokesman Matt Sibley neatly shot down that point by reminding the audience that Amendment T removes the conflict of interest of legislators drawing their own districts. Sibley also noted that any biases among redistricting commissioners will be checked by the new constitutional safeguards by which T prohibits the commission from looking at the voter affiliation data and specific names and addresses that a biased commissioner would need to rig map lines to favor one party or one candidate over another. Rep. Stalzer reasserted that politics did not guide the 2011 redistricting:
On a question about cost and taxes, Sibley said T will save money, since it cuts the size of the redistricting committee from fifteen legislators to nine independent redistricters. Rep. Stalzer pointed out that the immediate extra redistricting T calls for in 2017 would cost more money.
Rep. Stalzer’s grousing about having to redo his campaign signs only further exposes the self-interest that prevents legislators from passing a fair redistricting proposal. But he also misses the long-term savings of a smaller independent redistricting commission. Rep. Stalzer doesn’t rebut Sibley’s math on commission size, so let’s use it.
Sure, the immediate off-Census 2017 redistricting would be an added cost (call it 9x, where x is the per-diem cost for each commission member). By 2021, when we get back to the post-Census redistricting routine, we would spend another 9x, at which point our total redistricting cost post-T would be 18x, versus a mere 15x for one standard decennial redistricting by the Legislature. But by 2031, T will have spent money on three redistrictings by nine committee members each time for a total cost of 27x, while under the status quo, we will have paid for two redistrictings by fifteen committee members each time for a total cost of 30x. Within two standard decennial redistrictings, Amendment T saves us money. By 2101, Amendment T saves us 33% on redistricting costs. T gives us fairer election maps and saves us money to boot.
The howler here is that Rep. Stalzer cites Rep. Lora Hubbel’s gerrymandering into an incumbent-filled district as an example of the lack of self-interest or partisan gaming of the current redistricting process. To the contrary, Rep. Lora Hubbel’s sacking is a glaring example of how the majority will use redistricting to punish its own members who fall into disfavor. The Republican majority wanted Lora Hubbel out of the Legislature as surely as they wanted to vanquish Frank Kloucek. Lora Hubbel’s fate in 2011 and 2012 exemplifies exactly the self-interest that corrupts the current redistricting process. Amendment T would eliminate exactly that self-interest and produce more fair legislative district maps.
Rep. Stalzer defended the Republican position against independent redistricting as gamely as he could. Even with more notice, Rep. Stalzer would have struggled to come up with plausible arguments to cloak the Republican Party’s real intent in opposing Amendment T: to cling to their power to rig the map for their favored candidates.
Hillary is a candidate who has a tremendous wealth of experience, as First Lady, as senator from New York, as Secretary of State. She has an ambitious and positive policy agenda for the U.S. and, as a new father, you try to think about what you want your child to inherit from you in their country and I see her vision as the one that I want my child to grow up in [Brett Hoffman, in “Clinton Nation,” USA Today, August 2016].
Joining Hoffman in endorsing Clinton is the man with the best Scrabble® name in South Dakota, Sioux Falls attorney Bob Trzynka:
I think the thing that I find most attractive about Hillary Clinton for this election is the fact that she has the experience, the knowledge, and the aptitude to take on a job as challenging as the President of the United States. We’re at a critical crossroads, to a certain extent, in where we move forward and where we sit in the world and we need a leader who has demonstrated the ability and the experience to handle the various minefields associated with the modern world. Hillary has done that [Bob Trzynka, in “Clinton Nation,” USA Today, August 2016].
Trzynka’s mom Judy was a delegate to this year’s Republican National Convention. USA Today missed a chance for a nice mother-son discussion of the relative merits of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Instead, they found Sioux Falls conservative Lora Hubbel to speak up from South Dakota on Trump. Her endorsement of Trump seems far less direct than what Trzynka and Hoffman say about Clinton:
I am intrigued by him, I represent the religious right, I am a born-again Christian and a conservative, and that is kind of how I vote, usually. He doesn’t necessarily fit that bill, but the last one who did was Jimmy Carter, so him being the second-worst president, you know, behind our current one, maybe you don’t always want, you know, what you think you want. So that is why I was kinda open to Donald Trump. I have taken his courses, I love the messages behind his courses. They are very difficult and he actually expects people to do what he says [Lora Hubbel, in “Trump Nation,” USA Today, August 2016].
Three voices from the Minne-Linc metroplex are far from a rigorous sample of South Dakota opinion on the Presidential race. But the endorsements presented suggest the weakness of the case for Trump and the cause Clinton may have to launch the fifty-state strategy and wage at least a diversionary skirmish in South Dakota.
Senator Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford) is killing primary challenger Lora Hubbel in campaign contributions. According to the incumbent Senator’s pre-primary report, she’s received $10,148 in individual contributions, another $10,300 from 19 South Dakota PACs, $2,300 from six evil out-of-state corporate PACs (Big Pharma! Big Retail! Big Insurance—even though Peters voted against stealth vouchers!), and $1,750 from three candidate committees. Peters has spent $15,417.74, but with almost $14,000 that she had on hand at the beginning and over $4,000 in personal loans to the campaign, Peters had enough cash to give $600 to the Minnehaha County GOP and $400 to the Senate GOP Campaign Committee and still have over $22,000 on hand to finish off her challenger and prep for November.
To cover her $4,978.40 in advertising, printing, and postage, Hubbel has had to loan her campaign $5,000 of her own money. Even if Hubbel writes off that $5K, her cash on hand of $871.20 is 4% of what Peters has available for the remaining primary season.
One oddity: Hubbel received $300 from SD RPAC, the realtors. During the same reporting period, SD RPAC gave Senator Peters $1,000. Hubbel’s only other PAC backer, the South Dakota Chiropractic PAC, gave her $500 and Peters nothing… signaling that our chiropractors may be one of the most arch-conservative professions in the state. (Curious: does anyone know a good Democratic chiropractor?)
As a Senate candidate, I’m telling my District 3 neighbors that I will fight corruption by being a watchdog, just as I do here on the blog, asking questions, finding and reporting real data, and speaking truth to power.
Potential Senate candidate Lora Hubbel (she’s not on the official list yet, but she swears on Facebook that she sent her District 9 petition in yesterday) says she’ll fight corruption right now by hiring Magnum PI to get to “the real story” behind the deaths of GEAR UP scandal king- and queen-pins Scott and Nicole Westerhuis and their children last September in Platte:
It’s a free country, and in South Dakota, we candidates are freer than most to spend our campaign contributions however we see fit. But I think I’ll spend my $15,000 to $20,000 on print ads and parade shirts before I hire a detective to try to prove that Attorney General Marty Jackley is lying to us.
But Lora, if your P.I. finds anything, let us know. If you make it to the Senate with me, I’ll be glad to have your help rooting out corruption.
In a rare useful turn, Gordon Howie reveals Deelstra’s name by publishing the sworn complaint by another 2012 District 9 Republican Legislative candidate, Lora Hubbel. In her June 26, 2015, affidavit, Hubbel says Deelstra spilled the beans:
A few weeks ago, Bob Deelstra showed me a copy of the petition on which he, himself gathered signatures for Rep Steve Hickey in March of 2012. It was his understanding that if Hickey had enough signatures he would not have to use the ones he (Deelstra) obtained. Bob Deelstra told me that he collected the signatures at the March, 2012, Hartford City Council meeting (see enclosure). As you can see, many of the signature’s [sic] do belong to Hartford City Council members who have said publically that Steve Hickey was not at the meeting and that Bob Deelstra was the petition carrier…even though Rep Hickey did indeed sign the petition’s “oath” pledging that he had witnessed their signatures. In doing so he violated SDCL 28-11-28.1 by filing a false instrument [Lora Hubbel, affidavit, published by Gordon Howie, “Affidavit Filed on Hickey Petitions,” The Right Side, 2015.07.09].
Note that Hubbel’s statement would be inadmissible in court, since it consists entirely of hearsay. She says she heard Bob Deelstra say Hickey did not circulate the petition sheet he swore he circulated. For the charge of petition fraud to stick, Bob Deelstra will have to come forward and say, under oath, what Hubbel says he said.
Note further that Hubbel, like the reporter who opened up this story, Jonathan Ellis, overstates the statements of Hartford City Council members. Only one Hartford City Council member, Mark Monahan, said “absolutely” that Hickey did not circulate the petition he signed. The other signatories’ statements are qualified with “don’t know”s and “do not recall”s that make for good blogging but don’t convict anyone of a felony.
Note finally that Hubbel feels compelled to put “oath” in mock quotation marks. In her defense of convicted felon Annette Bosworth, Hubbel has taken the position that nominating petitions carry no oath to violate:
Note nowhere does it say she must WITNESS the signatures. She must verify it, a significantly lower bar.
Note it says carriers (more than one) must sign the petition (singular)…yet there is only one place for one carrier to sign.
Note the law says “under Oath” yet there is no oath anywhere on the petition for a notary to administer before they sign…AND NOTARIES CANNOT ADMINISTER OATHS…JUDGES DO [Lora Hubbel, Facebook post, 2015.06.05].
I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration [SDAR 05:02:08:00.03].
That oath is exactly what Hubbel says it isn’t. But such are the Twister-like contortions Hubbel and other Bosworth cultists must undertake to cling to their spots on the game mat. Hubbel and Bosworth don’t think oaths matter; they are interested in revenge against anyone who helped bring Bosworth to justice.