Samuelson Puts Mom’s $50K Bequeath into Amendment V

Your mother dies and leaves you $50,000. What do you do with the money?

  1. New car
  2. New boat
  3. New porch
  4. New primary election system

Drey Samuelson picks D:

By the time the check arrived, he knew what he was going to do with it. This week, he confirmed that he will donate it to the campaign of Amendment V, the ballot measure that would make all South Dakota elections nonpartisan, similar to judicial or school board campaigns.

“I’m not some rich guy,” says Samuelson, 63, who also worked for state Democratic icon Tom Daschle. “I decided to do this because I believe strongly in nonpartisan elections, but also as a way to honor my mom” [Stu Whitney, “Campaign Gift from the Heart,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.08.11].

That single donation puts the Vote Yes on V committee a full fifth of the way to its $250K fundraising goal.

7 Responses to Samuelson Puts Mom’s $50K Bequeath into Amendment V

  1. Mike Kokenge SR

    Minnehaha County gop chair dave roetman was a guest on the belfrage spin zone yesterday. roetman proceeded to spin the republican line on why Amendments V and T and Initiated Measures 22 and 23 are wrong for South Dakotans. The link to the belfrage spin zone is here.

    When a repub like roetman is dead against these measures, it calls for a closer investigation. I know exactly why, from front line experience, I am all in on IM 23. This states so-called right to work laws need a serious re-examination. I worked for 30 years in a union atmosphere and gladly paid my union dues which amounted to 30 minutes of salary in a two week pay period. Ten percent of our employees could be part time, no benefit, and poverty level waged. How they were treated was reprehensible, and the major reason why I know unions are needed. I am sure you, Cory, and your wife see the same treatment of so called “substitute” teachers.

    Amendment V only makes common sense to vote yes on.

    Still a little unclear on IM 22. Need to explore this one closer.

    Amendment T, or the gerrymandering amendment, makes so much sense on the national scale. For instance, thanks to gerrymandering, states like Ohio look completely chopped up to make sure repubs control the state. When Ohio gives its popular vote to Dems, and the repubs take 4 in 5 seats in the state legislature, gerrymandering is why. But in South Dakota? I took a look at this map.

    Is gerrymandering happening here? It sure looks like it, especially district 3, your district Cory.

  2. Darin Larson

    Mike, your map at the end of your post must be old before the last redistricting. District 25 is a gerrymanders dream now.

    How can someone be against nonpartisan redistricting?

  3. Darin Larson

    Kudos to Mr. Samuelson and to his late mother. She must have done a good job raising him.

  4. Do these measures erase the districts and make more sensible districts? Do these measures remain intact and still an advantage for republicans to continue cheating the people of this state?

  5. drey samuelson

    Donal–(hope you see this)… there is nothing in Amendment V which changes district lines in any way, shape or form. However, Amendment T removes legislative district line drawing authority from the Legislature, and gives it to a nonpartisan commission made up of three Democrats, three Republicans and three Independents, and deserves–in my view–folks’ strong support.

  6. Mike, the Legislature totally gerrymanders its districts. Districts 1, 2, and 3 are excellent examples. Amendment T would change that.

    As Drey says, Amendment V doesn’t change boundaries, only the primary and general election process. But T and V would work together to give voters more choices on the ballot. T would draw a fairer election map, meaning Republicans and Democrats would start on a fairer playing field, which would encourage more candidates to run for office. V would allow more voters to participate in the primary elections, meaning that even if the only two people running for State Senate or sheriff are from the same party, everyone gets to vote, not just those lucky party members.

  7. drey samuelson

    And the other thing which V would do, which in my view is at least as important, is that it would (if SD follows the Nebraska example, which I’d expect) lead to nonpartisan governance of the Legislature, as well. The Nebraska Legislature is the only legislative body in the country where people from both parties (or no party, for that matter) are committee chairs; policy isn’t made behind closed partisan doors, because partisan caucuses don’t exist; and much more effective checks and balances exist, as well, because on party bosses carry no weight. It’s not Nirvana–Nebraska has issues, too, of course, but party control of state government isn’t one of them.