Pat Powers dings Attorney General Marty Jackley for not including enough representatives of crime victims on his new task force to figure out how to clean up the mess created by Amendment S, the new crime victims bill of rights. Out of 25 members, Jackley included three police chiefs, two sheriffs, three state’s attorneys, two defense attorneys, five state officials, Amendment S sponsor and Jackley’s gubernatorial campaign treasurer Jason Glodt, and one victims’ advocate, Krista Heeren-Graber of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
But hey, how many South Dakota victims advocates did Glodt and his California sugar daddy Henry T. Nicholas involve in drafting Amendment S? As far as I know, none! So Jackley is actually a good step ahead of the Amendment S creators.
Besides, can we take any critique of Jackley from Powers seriously when one of his main sponsors right now is Jackley’s primary opponent in the 2018 race for Governor, our fourth-term-ignoring sole Congresswoman Kristi Noem? Watch for Powers to turn Glodt’s own victims rights propaganda against his new campaign boss and portray every step the Attorney General takes to bring clarity to Glodt’s lazy, cookie-cutter amendment as an attack on victims of rape and domestic abuse, allowing Noem, who has enjoyed six years of policy-free do-nothingness in Washington, to step in as the soft, feminine, loving advocate for crime victims.
With any luck they will decimate, kill, destroy, wipe out, render unserviceable, hell pick a word your ownself to describe the optimal result of these two factions locking horns.
At this point in the game, I think SD could do a whole lot worse than Jackely. But………. Aside from Noem under the “do nothing” dome” it will be interesting to see how the constitutionality questions of IM-22 unravel Jackley’s defense effort. I’m told that IM-22 backers are fully prepared for a vigorous defense but about all they can do, as I see it, is enter the ground game with an amicus position. If Jackely doesn’t show up in court and mount a well put together and reasoned defense that results in much of the measure remaining in tact, it will be curious to see how success or failure influence his election. Seems to me, to secure the greatest campaign support, he almost has to perform exceptionally well. Obviously, there will be those tin foil hat critics that he won’t impress but overall, given the vote in the election, it would seem to be in his best interests politically, to swing for the fence. I’m sure that there will be some elements of the measure that won’t pass constitutional muster that the average guy on the street will be able to rationalize; myself included. All well and good as long as the fundamental components of it stay in place. As for Marsy’s Law, his appointments could stand a little less bureaucratic bent and more ground level spoken experience but- I hesitate to think that Noem could provide any “touchy feely” sensitivity as an advocate to replace the effort because she has yet to demonstrate being an advocate for anything- well perhaps “farm dust” and holding up the Supreme Court WOTUS rule as the biggest federal land grab in history. Takes a special kind of short term shallow thought process to arrive at that conclusion.