Press "Enter" to skip to content

SDPB Drags David Novstrup to Another Tortured Defense of Cutting Kids’ Wages

Last night’s South Dakota Focus led off with discussion of Referred Law 20, the youth minimum wage cut. SDPB hasn’t made the video embeddable, but here are images of the two speakers, prime sponsor Senator David Novstrup and the man who will replace him in Pierre, me:

Cory Allen Heidelberger, defender of teen workers
Cory Allen Heidelberger, defender of teen workers. (screen cap SDPB, 2016.10.27)
Senator David Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen), employer of teen workers and prime sponsor of measure to cut the youth minimum wage. (screen cap SDPB, 2016.10.27)
Senator David Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen), prime sponsor of RL 20. (screen cap SDPB, 2016.10.27)

SDPB shows clear bias here by shooting Novstrup on the shady side of the street while framing me on the sunny side of the street. Of course, it was also a 90-degree July day when we shot our segment, so you’d think I’d be wilting in the heat. But poor David looks like he’s being led to the gallows.

Of course, if I were trying to defend a bad bill by contending that we disrespect older workers by giving young workers equal minimum protection in the workplace, I’d look a little ill, too.

But at least David was willing to go on camera to defend his poor work. For the second segment of last night’s show, on Referred Law 19, the petition reform bill, SDPB’s Stephanie Rissler couldn’t get David or any other Republican who voted for it in 2015 to defend the measure. She’s stuck reading Rep. Brian Gosch’s (R-32/Rapid City) risibly short, crassly partisan, and flatly false proponent statement. Viewers thus are treated to seven minutes (starting around timestamp 09:40) of my explaining how Referred Law 19 leads to fewer candidates and fewer choices on our ballot.

I have heard from a couple of readers who are confused by this month’s SDPB programming guide, which apparently lists me as the “sponsor” of Referred Laws 19 and 20. Indeed, that is confusing, making it sound like I’m supporting those two measures. As last night’s South Dakota Focus makes clear, I oppose both measures… and so should you!


  1. Nick Nemec 2016-10-28 08:32

    My mother absentee voted at home this week. When she was voting and came to Referred Law 20 she read the ballot explanation and muttered “Why would they want to reduce the minimum wage? That’s just silly.” This was without any prompting or lobbying from me, simply the thoughts of a 83 year old woman.

  2. Jenny 2016-10-28 09:46

    Good for her, Nick. I would have responded, “I guess the business owners think they’re losing money on those pesky teens!” or “so the business owners can make more money”. “Some amusement park owners up in Aberdeen are sponsors behind that bill”

    (Those darn teens have to ruin everybody’s top profit margins.)

  3. Jenny 2016-10-28 09:54

    This reminds me of my 82 year old neighbor who I’ve been friends with since I’ve moved into the neighborhood a decade ago. I ask her the other day, when I was visiting her, who she going to vote for president. She says ‘certainly not that Donald Trump, he’s just horrible”. Then she says “I’m not that keen on Hillary Clinton either. She said it’s probably be one of the other ones, maybe that Gary Johnson guy. She is a longtime member of the DFL party, and I can swear I had no say on how she should vote!

  4. Jenny 2016-10-28 10:56

    Matthew 20:1-16 All workers should be paid a just and living wage.

    (apparently not for SD workers.)

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-10-28 19:40

    Nick, let’s hope your mom’s common sense represents the sentiments of most South Dakota voters.

    Jenny, let’s hope measures like 20 don’t make those pesky teens give up on us. Voting NO on this bill is a chance for us to show our kids that we respect them.

Comments are closed.