…Wiese will be sworn in as a state representative on Tuesday, Jan. 31.
“I thank Marli Wiese for agreeing, on short notice, to accept this appointment,” said Gov. Daugaard. “I know she will be an effective advocate for her district and our state.”
Wiese is a lifelong resident of the Madison area. She is a graduate of Madison High School and Nettleton Commercial College. Wiese and her husband, Reggie, have operated their family farm since 1976. The Wieses have three children and ten grandchildren.
“Representing District 8 and South Dakota is an honor,” said Wiese. “I want to Thank Gov. Daugaard for his confidence in me and look forward to beginning my duties in Pierre.”
In addition to operating their farm, Wiese works part-time as a transcriptionist and at her church, West Center Baptist Church. She serves on the board of the Madison Central School Education Foundation, is vice chair of the Lake County Republican Party and is a member of PEO [Governor’s office, press release, 2017.01.25].
One of the perks of being governor is the virtually unlimited discretion to appoint whoever you choose to a legislative vacancy. I say virtually unlimited because the appointee must still meet constitutional and statutory requirements. Democrats either need to win these seats in elections or win the governorship to get appointment authority. Why should the governor hand a seat that Republicans won to a Democrat? Let us not ask for charity, but take our case to the people.
Tim Higgins
News flash, Scott Parsley lost his election. The voters spoke so why would he be appointed to fill a vacancy?
moses6
another yes person.
Rod Hall
As the result of the Rodney Gutzler R-Salem Supreme Court case a person does not have to meet residency requirements. The court let stand that it is the body (SD House in this case) that had the final jurisdiction.
Rorschach needs to know the facts or is he using Trump’s alternate facts, lies!
Daniel Buresh
Hey Rod, who said anything about residency requirements as it pertains to appointments? If that court case you cited is accurate, then it is only reaffirming that the constitutional and statutory requirements state that residency requirements are up to the SD House in the case that an appointment is needed. Everything Rorschach said was accurate.
Before you want to preach about facts, learn a little reading comprehension.
Rod Hall
Daniel
-I have read a lot about that case! I was the person that made it public. While the Constitution clearly states residency requirements a section of law , later than the constitution. was the basis that lets the Body seat any one they choose. The SD Supreme Court did not negate that power in any way, and by its action actually gave more credence to that later law.
Dan that case was not about some unelected person being appointed but it was about the seating of an elected official who did not meet constitutionally mandated residency.
The interesting aspect was that Gutzler’s seating gave the Repubs a two third majority in the House, Your lack of knowledge shows because you are unaware that Kneip a Dem would have made an appointment. You seem to like alternative facts!
O.K., o.k., no need to shout at each other. The case in question is Walter v. Gutzler (1977). Rodney Gutzler lived in Minnesota from 1968 to 1975. He was registered to vote in Minnesota as late as May, 1975. He moved back to Salem, ran for Legislature in 1976, and won a seat. Article 3 Section 3 says one must have “been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election” to serve as a legislator. Gutzler did not meet that constitutional requirement. The Republican-controlled House seated Gutzler. The incumbent Gutzler beat, Merwyn Walter, sued over Gutzler’s too-short pre-election residency. The South Dakota Supreme Court said yeah, but look at Article 3 Section 9, which says “Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members.” The Court chose to defer entirely to the House, even as the House declined to enforce an undisputed failure of the candidate to satisfy a constitutional qualification.
In other words, when the Legislature gets done overturning the people’s will on ballot measures, it could turn to overturning the people’s will on candidates by refusing to recognize the qualifications of any candidate from the minority party and handing their Governor the opportunity to appoint loyal majority party hacks to every seat that the minority wins in November.
Maybe we need to amend Article 3 Section 9.
Darin Larson
Cory, amending the constitution doesn’t matter if the SD Supreme Court is not going to enforce it. How can a general prescription of the legislature being the judge of qualifications overrule the specific requirement in the constitution that the legislator be a resident of SD for two years prior to the election? I have not looked into this further than your comments, but it sure seems like a purely partisan decision.
Normally, specific provisions of a Constitution are read to be controlling over general provisions along with the idea that they have to be read as harmonious. The Gutzler case appears to make meaningless the residency requirement. This is anathema to the common rules for constitutional interpretation.
Rorschach
After reading the case, the bottom line is that you can’t sit on an issue of a candidate’s eligibility until after an election and then bring it up. It’s just like challenging someone’s petitions now. If you don’t do it timely you lose the ability to do it. From the case:
“Although we today reaffirm the constitutional power of the house of representatives to judge the qualifications of its members, we would add that the power is restricted to its “members.” Whether the eligibility of Gutzler as a candidate could have been properly challenged by judicial proceedings prior to the general election, we need not decide. … However, once the general election has been held, the power to pass upon the qualifications of a candidate for representative is vested exclusively in the house of representatives.”
Darin Larson
Thanks for the information, Ror.
I am still in disagreement with the case’s holding however. If the Constitution provides you must be a resident for two years prior to the election, that isn’t magically cured by the election. The folks that challenged IM22 didn’t have to file their constitution based challenge until after the election. Also, elections didn’t stop people like Trump from challenging Obama’s qualifications. And an election didn’t cure the ethical concerns that people had with Rep. Wollmann for conduct that occurred prior to his current term in office.
There are circumstances where sitting on your rights for too long without action should preclude your lawsuit. That is why we have statute of limitations. The only statute of limitations that should apply to an election challenge to someone who is asserted to not meet the constitutional requirements for office is after the person leaves office.
What if the person gets elected and they never lived in SD? What if they are not even a citizen and they are elected?
Rod Hall
Just a bit on the lighter side. I lost my re-election bid to the Senate. I was in Pierre and went to say goodbye to SOS Lorna Herseth. When I walked out I happened to look at the SD Constitution which was displayed under glass. Holy Moses, it was opened to the two year residency requirement. I thought “Did I break the law?” You see Rodney Gutzler moved to Dist. 9 from New Hope Mn.and was elected to the Legislature. Rodney Hall moved from New Hope, Mn to Dist. 9 and was elected to the Legislature. I immediately started to see how long I had been a SD Dist. 9 resident. It was just over 2 years, whew, I was legal. To make matters more interesting, Virginia Gutzler, was business manager of the Salem School District where I had been employed and that Virginia Gutzler was Rodney Gutzler’s mother.
Dist. 9 at that time included Miner and Sanborn Counties which are two of the four counties in the District in question. I am leaving for Madison, WI so I am looking for a different kind of hot air.
Sam@
Cory you sound bitter and I can only speculate as to why?
grudznick
Mr. Sam@, I cannot speak for Mr. H for he is a good speaker form himself. But I, for one, have often found Mr. H to also come across as bitter about certain things. But after he explains that he is not bitter, as I am sure he will to you, you will see he is not bitter at all but it is some other rational thing that is going on.
I thought I’d help you out here. Beat me if I’m answering out of line.
Rorschach
Here’s the rest of the story about Rod Gutzler. As the Republican Party veered right, it left him behind. He switched to Democrat and became very active in the Democratic Party until his untimely death in 2014.
One of the perks of being governor is the virtually unlimited discretion to appoint whoever you choose to a legislative vacancy. I say virtually unlimited because the appointee must still meet constitutional and statutory requirements. Democrats either need to win these seats in elections or win the governorship to get appointment authority. Why should the governor hand a seat that Republicans won to a Democrat? Let us not ask for charity, but take our case to the people.
News flash, Scott Parsley lost his election. The voters spoke so why would he be appointed to fill a vacancy?
another yes person.
As the result of the Rodney Gutzler R-Salem Supreme Court case a person does not have to meet residency requirements. The court let stand that it is the body (SD House in this case) that had the final jurisdiction.
Rorschach needs to know the facts or is he using Trump’s alternate facts, lies!
Hey Rod, who said anything about residency requirements as it pertains to appointments? If that court case you cited is accurate, then it is only reaffirming that the constitutional and statutory requirements state that residency requirements are up to the SD House in the case that an appointment is needed. Everything Rorschach said was accurate.
Before you want to preach about facts, learn a little reading comprehension.
Daniel
-I have read a lot about that case! I was the person that made it public. While the Constitution clearly states residency requirements a section of law , later than the constitution. was the basis that lets the Body seat any one they choose. The SD Supreme Court did not negate that power in any way, and by its action actually gave more credence to that later law.
Dan that case was not about some unelected person being appointed but it was about the seating of an elected official who did not meet constitutionally mandated residency.
The interesting aspect was that Gutzler’s seating gave the Repubs a two third majority in the House, Your lack of knowledge shows because you are unaware that Kneip a Dem would have made an appointment. You seem to like alternative facts!
O.K., o.k., no need to shout at each other. The case in question is Walter v. Gutzler (1977). Rodney Gutzler lived in Minnesota from 1968 to 1975. He was registered to vote in Minnesota as late as May, 1975. He moved back to Salem, ran for Legislature in 1976, and won a seat. Article 3 Section 3 says one must have “been a resident of the state for two years next preceding election” to serve as a legislator. Gutzler did not meet that constitutional requirement. The Republican-controlled House seated Gutzler. The incumbent Gutzler beat, Merwyn Walter, sued over Gutzler’s too-short pre-election residency. The South Dakota Supreme Court said yeah, but look at Article 3 Section 9, which says “Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members.” The Court chose to defer entirely to the House, even as the House declined to enforce an undisputed failure of the candidate to satisfy a constitutional qualification.
In other words, when the Legislature gets done overturning the people’s will on ballot measures, it could turn to overturning the people’s will on candidates by refusing to recognize the qualifications of any candidate from the minority party and handing their Governor the opportunity to appoint loyal majority party hacks to every seat that the minority wins in November.
Maybe we need to amend Article 3 Section 9.
Cory, amending the constitution doesn’t matter if the SD Supreme Court is not going to enforce it. How can a general prescription of the legislature being the judge of qualifications overrule the specific requirement in the constitution that the legislator be a resident of SD for two years prior to the election? I have not looked into this further than your comments, but it sure seems like a purely partisan decision.
Normally, specific provisions of a Constitution are read to be controlling over general provisions along with the idea that they have to be read as harmonious. The Gutzler case appears to make meaningless the residency requirement. This is anathema to the common rules for constitutional interpretation.
After reading the case, the bottom line is that you can’t sit on an issue of a candidate’s eligibility until after an election and then bring it up. It’s just like challenging someone’s petitions now. If you don’t do it timely you lose the ability to do it. From the case:
“Although we today reaffirm the constitutional power of the house of representatives to judge the qualifications of its members, we would add that the power is restricted to its “members.” Whether the eligibility of Gutzler as a candidate could have been properly challenged by judicial proceedings prior to the general election, we need not decide. … However, once the general election has been held, the power to pass upon the qualifications of a candidate for representative is vested exclusively in the house of representatives.”
Thanks for the information, Ror.
I am still in disagreement with the case’s holding however. If the Constitution provides you must be a resident for two years prior to the election, that isn’t magically cured by the election. The folks that challenged IM22 didn’t have to file their constitution based challenge until after the election. Also, elections didn’t stop people like Trump from challenging Obama’s qualifications. And an election didn’t cure the ethical concerns that people had with Rep. Wollmann for conduct that occurred prior to his current term in office.
There are circumstances where sitting on your rights for too long without action should preclude your lawsuit. That is why we have statute of limitations. The only statute of limitations that should apply to an election challenge to someone who is asserted to not meet the constitutional requirements for office is after the person leaves office.
What if the person gets elected and they never lived in SD? What if they are not even a citizen and they are elected?
Just a bit on the lighter side. I lost my re-election bid to the Senate. I was in Pierre and went to say goodbye to SOS Lorna Herseth. When I walked out I happened to look at the SD Constitution which was displayed under glass. Holy Moses, it was opened to the two year residency requirement. I thought “Did I break the law?” You see Rodney Gutzler moved to Dist. 9 from New Hope Mn.and was elected to the Legislature. Rodney Hall moved from New Hope, Mn to Dist. 9 and was elected to the Legislature. I immediately started to see how long I had been a SD Dist. 9 resident. It was just over 2 years, whew, I was legal. To make matters more interesting, Virginia Gutzler, was business manager of the Salem School District where I had been employed and that Virginia Gutzler was Rodney Gutzler’s mother.
Dist. 9 at that time included Miner and Sanborn Counties which are two of the four counties in the District in question. I am leaving for Madison, WI so I am looking for a different kind of hot air.
Cory you sound bitter and I can only speculate as to why?
Mr. Sam@, I cannot speak for Mr. H for he is a good speaker form himself. But I, for one, have often found Mr. H to also come across as bitter about certain things. But after he explains that he is not bitter, as I am sure he will to you, you will see he is not bitter at all but it is some other rational thing that is going on.
I thought I’d help you out here. Beat me if I’m answering out of line.
Here’s the rest of the story about Rod Gutzler. As the Republican Party veered right, it left him behind. He switched to Democrat and became very active in the Democratic Party until his untimely death in 2014.
Ror, thanks for that reminder that Gutzler saw the light!
My mental state is irrelevant to the facts presented, Sam. As usual, I am not the story. :-)