Democrat Randy Seiler is campaigning for Attorney General on the nice things top Republican prosecutors have said about him. Now he can add the nice things two prominent Republicans and former Attorneys General are saying about him right now.
Mark Meierhenry served as Attorney General during* the Janklow Administration from 1979 to 1987. Roger Tellinghuisen served in that office during the following four years, during the Mickelson Administration. Both Meierhenry and Tellinghuisen know what it takes to do the job. Both men agree that Randy Seiler is the right man for the job today:
Randy Seiler has been endorsed by two former South Dakota Attorney’s General, Mark Meierhenry and Roger Tellinghuisen.
“As Republicans and former Attorney’s General, we are asking that you support the best qualified candidate to be South Dakota’s next Attorney General. This year that candidate is Randy Seiler, a Democrat and an experienced prosecutor, who has served as our state’s U.S. Attorney. We know from experience that this is an important job and that is why we are supporting Randy Seiler this November.”
Seiler welcomed the endorsement, saying, “I am proud to receive the endorsement of two individuals who have actually served as Attorney General. It is yet another example of how this race transcends party lines. It emphasizes the importance of electing someone who is ready to keep South Dakota safe” [Randy Seiler for Attorney General, press release, 2018.10.10].
Randy Seiler has the direct endorsement of two former attorneys general and the past kind words of our current Attorney General. His Republican opponent, Jason Ravnsborg, has no such high-profile endorsements to date from people who’ve done the job he seeks.
*Correction 20:57 CDT: A learned political observer takes issue with my original wording, in which I said Seiler’s endorsers served “under” the governors of their day. While the Governor is the highest-ranking official in state government, the Attorney General is elected separately and thus does not technically answer to the Governor. The reader’s point is reasonable: Randy Seiler will not answer to Billie Sutton any more than Marty Jackley has answered to Dennis Daugaard or M. Michael Rounds.
What’s the latest with this race, anyone know? Neck and Neck?
You know, I’m kind of surprised Larry Long hasn’t endorsed Seiler too. There’s still time for that. Heavyweight lawyers want a heavyweight lawyer in the AG position.
Rohr, isn’t Long still on the bench? He can’t endorse anyone, can he?
We have known and respected him for over 20 years as a competent and trustworthy public attorney and now know Randy Seiler is the best choice for South Dakota as Attorney General!
Bill & DeeAnn Stevens
I agree that these two Republican endorsements are a big deal, but if they are a big deal, then isn’t it a big deal to have a running mate that was a member of the opposing party just a few weeks before nominated?
But if Party doesn’t matter, then how do these endorsements matter?
I don’t fault Seiler on this matter, however, his endorsement situation is genuine or maybe by de-fault, but the other reality shows us just why we should be concerned, unless we are not concerned about logic….
Wow, the law is still ruling this land. “WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts is referring complaints against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to federal judges in Colorado and neighboring states.
The complaints deal with statements Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearings. They were filed originally with Kavanaugh’s old court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Roberts says in a letter posted Wednesday on the D.C. Circuit website that he has asked judges who handle ethics complaints for the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deal with the complaints.
In a statement issued Saturday, D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson said the complaints only “seek investigations … of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court.”” https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/10/kavanaugh-complaints-federal-judges-colorado/
One more reason we need a strong legal voice for South Dakota Randy Seiler is the real deal and would serve us proudly.
@CAH Not so fast! The AG is in fact part of the Executive Branch under the SD Constitution and the AG in fact has to get permission from the Governor on every case. You must have missed the drama on this during last session when they waltzed around the issue and did everything possible to not answer direct questions on cases the governor denied investigations into: https://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?Bill=112&Session=2018
I would have loved to asked more questions but was cut short..
“AG in fact has to get permission from the Governor on every case.” On its face, this doesn’t seem to be correct. Can somebody confirm – especially “every case” ?
John KC, you’re working too hard! Seiler is getting big endorsements, Ravnsborg isn’t. Two men who’ve done the job say Seiler is more qualified to do the job than their own party’s nominee.
Now if we go beyond the main selling point (Vote for Seiler!) and dig into your logic, I’m afraid I need you to flesh out your point for me more. Are you saying that it is inconsistent to cheer these Republican endorsements of the Democratic candidate for Attorney General but feel uneasy about the Democratic candidate for Governor’s choice of a recent Republican as his running mate? If so, I think I’m ready to rebut, but I want to make sure I understand your direction first.
Ah! So the statutes Senator Nelson wanted to repeal from Chapter 1-11 do authorize the Governor to give the Attorney General orders and require the Attorney General, in certain situations, to get the Governor’s consent to act. Senator Nelson, I take it you’re saying the AG serves “under” the Governor is thus appropriate?
Jerry, Roberts sat on the ethics complaints until after kavernmouth got his cushy job and is now immune from charges of the lower courts.
You didn’t think kavernmouth was confirmed because he is anything more than a korporate.wingnut rubber stamp did you?
“Point of Order” bellers the old bull elephant grudznick right into Mr. Nelson’s sweaty round face.
The attorney general does not have to answer to the governor.
Vote Seiler. Ravnsborg is a buffoon.
Larry Long retired in September from the bench.
Sen. Nelson. The AG does not have to get permission from the governor on cases. However… The governor has authority to settle any case that the state is involved in. So practicality dictates that the AG should be on the same page as the governor. If the AG brings a case the governor doesn’t like, the governor can settle it and make the AG look like a fool.
Cory, what I saying is, that these endorsements have been branded, or at least a part of the point trying to me made is that these are Republicans who are endorsing Seiler, and I find that endorsement assessment refreshing since many appear to not be bothered that a former Republican, within days, becomes a Democrat and then the nominee for LtG. Because if we are to be impressed that Republicans are endorsing a Democratic nominee for AG, then should not we be equally unimpressed having a recent former Republican running as our LtG? Fore, if political party matters, which it apparently does with the AG endorsements, then why doesn’t it matter when picking a LtG?
And I am not “working to hard,” because I am just sitting back and watching Democratic standardbearers proclaim that they are pro-NRA, anti-choice, and suggest that you have to be a Christian to be qualified to run for governor, all of which is very horrifying to me as a Democrat and should be to any Democrat, if party and party philosophy really matter….
#WhereIsTheConsistency?
#ThrowingTheDishesOutWithTheDishwater
JKC,
If it’s only about party labels for you as well as a few prominent hot-button issues, you could just as soon stop banging your head against the wall. There will never be a state-wide election in SD where 100,000 more Republicans than Democrats elect a Democrat if party labels are the only determinate. You can sleep well at night knowing you haven’t compromised your idealistic principles by supporting a conservative Democrat, but have you done right by South Dakota? Who does your conscience tell you will better advance your principles in this state, Billie Sutton or Kristi Noem? It is really that simple.
Politics is frequently compromise. Idealism at the expense of reality is a frustrating and ineffective stance to take when the future of our state is at stake.
Darin,
“New Democrats” and Clinton gave us NAFTA, which in time gave us Trump. Then “New Labour” and Tony Blair gave us the ‘Ten Downing Memo’ and the continual war. Trust me, all actions have consequences and especially the reinventing of political parties does…
In the age of Trump, Democrats should not be using their religion as a political selling point.
There has always been a greater Republican advantage in this state, but Democrats won in the past with organization by doing the math and not just by trying to manipulate the message, and manipulating the message to a point where you wonder what it means to even be a given political party.
If others are fine with a Democratic Party which raises sales taxes on the working poor, is pro-NRA, anti-choice, and uses a given religion as a qualifier to be elected, then that is a Democratic Party I do not recognize.
And what you call “compromise.” I call appeasement.
What we are really witnessing here is not a political party in action with a philosophy, rather we are witnessing a political clique hungry for power….
@Rorschach & @Grudz, your opinions are Duly noted and dismissed as erroinsious. As I indicated before, the AG in fact by SD statutes, is required to get the governor’s consent “permission.” The bill with the relevant statutes. Unfortuanlty, the strike out marks did not copy into the post. If you had read the bill and the statutes before pontificating in error, you would have seen my statement was correct. https://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?Bill=112&Session=2018
State of South Dakota
NINETY-THIRD SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2018
193Z0223 SENATE BILL NO. 112
Introduced by: Senators Nelson, Frerichs, Greenfield (Brock), Jensen (Phil), Kolbeck, Maher, Monroe, Otten (Ernie), Russell, Stalzer, and Tapio and Representatives Kaiser, Beal, Bordeaux, Brunner, Campbell, Dennert, DiSanto, Frye-Mueller, Goodwin, Gosch, Howard, Latterell, Lesmeister, Livermont, Marty, May, Peterson (Sue), Pischke, and Rasmussen
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain provisions requiring the attorney general to obtain the consent of the Governor prior to commencing an investigation.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 1-11-8 be repealed.
1-11-8. Whenever the attorney general shall upon his own relation commence an investigation, the consent of the Governor shall be obtained by attaching to the record provided in § 1-11-9 a written request for such consent. A copy of the record and request shall be provided to the Governor for his file and the Governor shall acknowledge receipt of such request in writing on the original, which shall be retained by the attorney general. The request shall state in general terms the reasons for the request, and, if denied, such denial shall be in writing containing a statement in general terms of the reasons for the denial.
Section 2. That § 1-11-7 be amended to read:
1-11-7. Either branch house of the state Legislature may by its separate resolution, or both
houses of the Legislature may by a concurrent resolution of both branches, or the Governor may by an executive order filed in with the office Office of the secretary Secretary of state State, may direct the attorney general to investigate, or the attorney general may upon his own relation with consent of the Governor, investigate any office, department, bureau, board, commission, institution, or any other component part of the state government, or any particular transaction which that may require investigation. The attorney general may also, without the direction of the Legislature or Governor, conduct such an investigation. Upon the delivery to him of a copy of such any resolution certified by the presiding officer and secretary or chief clerk of either house of the Legislature or executive order certified by the secretary of state or by the presiding officer and secretary or chief clerk of either branch of the Legislature, it shall be the duty of, the attorney general to make shall conduct the investigation and make any required report or reports thereof regarding the investigation, and to take such any further action as may be required.
Section 3. That § 1-11-9 be amended to read:
1-11-9. Whenever If an investigation is directed by the Legislature or either branch thereof, or ordered by the Governor, or whenever an investigation is commenced by the attorney general, upon his own relation with the consent of the Governor, conducted by the attorney general pursuant to § 1-11-7, the attorney general shall keep a record of the same shall be kept by the attorney general investigation entitled as follows:
In the matter of the investigation of the ___ (naming the matter being investigated) pursuant to ___ resolution number ___ (describing the resolution), or the executive order of the Governor, or the attorney general’s own relation with the consent of the Governor.
Section 4. That § 1-11-10 be amended to read:
1-11-10. Under such resolution or order of the Governor, or the attorney general’s own relation with consent of the Governor, the During any investigation conducted pursuant to § 1-
11-7, the attorney general and his assistants, agents, and employees any assistant, agent, or employee of the attorney general shall have access to any and all books, blanks, reports, correspondence, records, property, office documents, and materials and equipment of the office, department, bureau, board, commission, or any other component part of the state government or any branch, arm, or agency of the state government, or any transaction, being investigated. When acting under any such resolution, or his own relation with the consent of the Governor, or order of the Governor During any investigation conducted pursuant to § 1-11-7, the attorney general or his assistants shall have the power to and any assistant of the attorney general may administer oaths, examine witnesses under oath, and make a record of the testimony. He shall have authority to The attorney general may issue subpoenas for witnesses and for books, blanks, reports, correspondence, records, documents, and exhibits and such witnesses may be subpoenaed from any part of the state to Pierre, South Dakota, or to any other point location in the state from distances not exceeding one hundred miles from the location. Such witnesses Any witness who is subpoenaed pursuant to this section shall be allowed the same per diem and mileage, as witnesses a witness in the circuit court. Any witness refusing to obey such a subpoena issued under this section, or to testify when subpoenaed, or to bring evidence required to be brought by said a subpoena issued under this section, may be certified to the nearest circuit court to the point located where the subpoena requires the witness’s appearance, and the said. The circuit court may then enforce obedience to said a subpoena issued under this section by order, the disobedience of which shall be treated the same as a contempt of said court.
JKC,
Making the Democratic party a “small tent” party that only caters to puritans of Democratic party ideals is the surest way to marginalize the party. You have your idealism to help you sleep at night while Republicans, who are not political puritans (witness Trump’s rise), rule the country.
You decry Bill Clinton and NAFTA, but the alternative to Bill Clinton was not Bernie Sanders–it was Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996. Would our country have been better off under Bush and Dole based on your Democratic criteria?
You talk about messaging and manipulating the message, but what is Trump if not more than anything but a manipulator of the message? There is no substance to the man. You say NAFTA gave us Trump. Trump just negotiated NAFTA version 1.1. Trump doesn’t care about the substance of NAFTA. He just needed to whip up nationalistic enthusiasm for himself and his political power. NAFTA didn’t give us Trump. Not paying enough attention to working class economic issues gave us Trump (along with the poor messaging of Democrats and allowing Republicans to define Hillary Clinton).
You can’t just “do the math” and turn out 100,000 more Democrats to vote in South Dakota than Republicans in order to win elections. You have to appeal to a broad cross section of the electorate. Billie Sutton does that.
I really don’t understand not supporting Billie even if he is not your idea of a perfect candidate. Guns and abortion are not the only issues in this state and on a myriad of issues that are important to everyday South Dakotans, Billie is going to more closely match our Democratic ideals. Not supporting Billie because he is not perfectly aligned with your issues is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You might not have liked the way it looked before, but you are really not going to like it after.
Cory just posted saying that Billie isn’t closely matched to Democrat ideals.
Interesting. I wasn’t a fan of either Meierhenry or Tellinghuisen as AGs. Let’s just say I liked them better after they left office. They were competent attorneys, though, and I suspect competence is why they are endorsing Seiler.
Darin,
Our Party is already “marginalized.” It is “marginalized” because it has become to cautious and too sanitized over the years. And as long as we do not stand for anything, we will not be seen as the alternative, but rather a mere generic one at best.
You mention Trump, the Republicans, and their successes, but Trump is destroying the Republican Party as we speak. Their “successes” are short term, because of his philosophical warp that he has embedded into the GOP.
Then you mention Clinton, Bush, and Dole. Clinton’s “New Democrats” approach is mild compared to our current South Dakota Democratic standard bearers positions. Yet, even with Clinton, we are realizing the devastating result of his NAFTA position.
You comment about Trump and NAFTA, but where did I say Trump really cares about NAFTA? But more importantly how is “not paying enough attention to working class economic issues gave us Trump,” different then the Clintons’ support for NAFTA gave us Trump?” What you said, is what I said with less word economy.
And as far as the “math,” well, it was doing the math in the past that allowed us to win. This 100,000 difference you mention also includes other variables like Independent voters and potential swing Republican voters. When IM 22 passed in 2016, it passed with a lot of Republican votes relative to the number of votes that Hawks and Obama got in South Dakota that year…. It can be done.
I would agree that we cannot just be obsessed with one or two issues, but when those issues are big and they are tied with other issues, that have been compromised, then you have to wonder what else can be compromised or will be in the future with these “‘New Democrats.'”
Darin, I appreciate your pragmatic points and concerns, but this current strategy by South Dakota Dems is way off the charts…. Way off the charts…. Its bizarre… Its embarrassing….
#CheckCorysLastestBlogPiece!
AG’s race is over. Grudznick endorsed Seiler. Seiler threatens to sue the coward.
Bring me some Libertarian stickers for my hat, Bob. You can drop them off with the hostess at Tally’s if there aren’t enough open seats for you again this Sunday. I’ll save you a soft, warm biscuit and chunk of ham with the rind pulled off.
Jackley lost the Phelps case last night, unable to attach blame on the lone Oglala SDSM&T GearUp leader. Republicans limited investigation so we may never know the truth. Protecting SD GOP is why Benda was the EB5 fall guy too. We just missed a bullet with Jackley’s primary loss, too. Electing Sutton and Seiler looks to be a Power Duo for Good. Vichy Democratic elected officials like Sen Manchin (W VA) are certainly not helping save our Democracy. Billie/Randy will. Baby steps for a baby state?