Republicans Want Indians to Pay for Fighting for Voting Rights

So much for Indian-White reconciliation.

Earlier this month Judge Karen Schreier dismissed Brooks v. Gant, an Indian voting-rights lawsuit brought by residents of the Pine Ridge reservation. The dismissal came only because the filing of the lawsuit forced Secretary of State Jason Gant to open a satellite voting station in Shannon County, thus fulfilling the demands of the plaintiffs.

The state claimed victory, and Rapid City lawyer Sara Frankenstein (who also happens to be treasurer of the state Republican Party) threatened the state might use that "victory" as grounds for demanding that the "losers" pay the counties' and state's court costs. Representatives of the plaintiffs said the threat to force poverty-stricken Indians to pay rich white folks' lawyers was so morally politically repugnant that it was probably just bluster:

“That’s breathtaking,” said Bret Healy, Four Directions consultant. “They have the insurance public officials typically hold to cover lawsuits. We all met the plaintiffs via their depositions—single parents, one with an epileptic child, others caring for infirm elders, from one of the poorest counties in the nation. The state of South Dakota and the counties are really going to do this? God have pity on their souls.”

“Won’t happen,” said [Four Directions co-director OJ] Semans. “It’s just a way to scare off Natives who might want to ask for equal rights in the future.”

“Granting costs would discourage plaintiffs from bringing suits to enforce the Voting Rights Act and would be contrary to the fundamental purpose of the Act,” agreed Laughlin McDonald, director emeritus of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. He also doubted it would happen.

McDonald, who has litigated Native enfranchisement cases since 1983, explained that a prevailing party in a federal case is ordinarily entitled to recover costs, but not when it comes to voting rights. “Federal courts have denied or severely limited recovery in those cases,” said McDonald.

What about recovering attorney’s fees? “I think such a motion would be filed in bad faith and even subject to sanctions,” said McDonald [Stephanie Woodard, "'They Caved': Tribe Claims Win in SD Voting-Rights Suit," Indian Country Today, 2013.08.13].

But Frankenstein wasn't bluffing. She has filed a motion to take over $6,000 in court costs from 25 Oglala Sioux Tribe members. Frankenstein says golly gee, she's not doing this "to be vindictive or send a message"; it's just what winners do in federal cases.

Four Directions calls that B.S. and has sent a letter of protest to various state officials, including Governor Dennis Daugaard. Here's a chance for the Governor to expand on his newly found reconciliatory spirit, admit that the counties and state "won" Brooks v. Gant only in technical terms, and tell Frankenstein to back off.

Instead, he kicks the Four Directions protest letter to Attorney General Marty Jackley, who flips Indians another finger:

In an emailed statement, Jackley said: “Under federal law, a prevailing party is permitted to request the court for certain allowable costs. The county defendants have made a request, and if there is an objection the federal court will determine whether and to what extent costs may be assessed” [Jonathan Ellis, "Voting Rights Case Settled, But Legal Costs Questions Isn't," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.08.24].

Translation: Don't bother me. You uppity Injuns will get what's coming to you from the court.

Governor Daugaard seems happy to play the benevolent friend of the tribes when they humble themselves by asking for help and give him a chance to exercise the power of the state. But when they challenge the power of the state, when they have the gall to ask for protection of voting rights that they will likely use to vote for Republicans' opponents, Governor Daugaard lets his friends bully our tribal neighbors.

Governor Daugaard, you have lawyer Frankenstein's number. Give her a call, and tell her to let Brooks v. Gant go.

Reconciliation at Work: Crow Creek Sioux Invite Highway Patrol to Help at Pow-Wow

Governor Dennis Daugaard tells a good story about tribal and state government taking a positive step toward building trust (I was going to say rebuilding, but has that trust ever existed?) between our two peoples at last weekend's Crow Creek Sioux Tribe pow-wow:

This year’s pow-wow marked the 150^th anniversary of the founding of Fort Thompson, the headquarters of the tribe. Anticipating a large crowd for the event, Chairman Brandon Sazue and the Tribal Council reached out to the South Dakota Highway Patrol to lend a hand with law enforcement and crowd control.

State authority of any kind on tribal land has long been a sensitive issue, so the council and the chairman knew they were taking a risk. They did it for the safety of their citizens. The Highway Patrol responded enthusiastically, offering five troopers and two police service dogs with handlers for the weekend [Governor, Dennis Daugaard, "A Small, Important Step at the Crow Creek Pow-Wow," press release, 2013.08.23].

Daugaard says the tribal–HP collaboration went well: troopers interacted with tribal members with respect and cultural sensitivity. Some troopers have volunteered to help at next year's pow-wow if invited.

Our governor, however, labors under no illusion that one weekend scores all the reconciliation points he needs for 2014... or for the good of all South Dakotans:

None of us is naïve enough to think one event on one weekend will change decades of distrust. Improving race relations is an ongoing, difficult task. It requires persistence, by all involved. It also requires some risk, reaching out and getting to know each other and beginning to trust each other. At the Crow Creek pow-wow last weekend, a group of good-hearted people did reach out. It’s a small step yet an important one. We can be hopeful [Daugaard, 2013.08.23].

(Daugaard also gets HTML-special character points: that umlaut on naïve is in his original text!)

I don't like to mingle reconciliation and score-keeping. But the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe took the harder step here, setting aside their mistrust to admit they needed help and ask for help from The Man. Now it's The Man's turn to reciprocate: what can the Governor and the Highway Patrol do to reach across their mistrust and offer the Crow Creek Sioux an empowering opportunity?

Daugaard Visits Madison Middle School -- Kids! Ask Tougher Questions!

Speaking of the budget, I learn from KJAM that the man making the state budget, Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard, swung through Madison to address kids at Madison Middle School. They asked some tough questions, like what Daugaard is nervous about. Now if only some bright eighth-graders could have made him more nervous by asking which of their teachers Daugaard would fire to satisfy the 5% cut to K-12 education he is likely to support.

Daugaard Cuts 10% from Honcho Pay, Including Own!

Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard is leading by example: he announced yesterday that he will cut his own pay ten percent when he takes office next month. He plans to impose the same cut on the top earners on his staff and state department chiefs.

Also dropping 10%: hits on the transition team's résumé-submission webpage.

Cutting salaries for elected officials doesn't usually fire me up much. These cuts probably won't reduce the state deficit by even 1% (though I'll be happy to be proven wrong by a full list of cuts). Pay-cut promises are usually political stunts to win votes from a cranky electorate. I'm just as inclined to say to a budget-cutting politician, "Don't bother cutting your salary; just work your keester off to earn every penny we pay you."

But Daugaard's pay cut doesn't sound like a political stunt. We usually hear paycut promises during the campaign, not after. I don't recall his hooting from the hustings his honcho-haircut plan. And if you accept Mr. Rosenthal's optimistic analysis, Daugaard will be no passive caretaker like his predecessor, Governor M. Michael Rounds. Rosenthal sees Daugaard planning the kind of CEO governorship that will earn its old pay and then some. (Wait a minute: did all you Republicans really vote for an activist governor?)

In homage to Mr. Rosenthal, I offer an Endbar:

Evidently Dennis Daugaard isn't worried about crashing the economy by cutting income for a few people at the top. So why can't he call Senator Thune and his Republican pals in Washington and tell them to apply the same thinking to repealing the Bush tax cuts?

Inaugural Balls January 8: Black Tie and Kazoo?

The tickets for Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard's balls are $25 a pop. Not bad for hanging out with swanky people and live music.

For a different kind of balls, you can squeeze into the Capitol Rotunda for free at noon on January 8 to watch Dusty Johnson take an oath that we all know he will break. I wonder if we can bring kazoos.

South Dakota, the Welfare State: Chapter 847

Say it again, kids: South Dakota loves federal money. South Dakota lives on federal money.

1. The new Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership building will be built on Uncle Sam's dime. Madison's city fathers cheerfully announced a $290K handout from the federal Community Development Block Grant program yesterday. The new office and Head Start facility has already received local subsidy in the form of a rock-bottom sale price for the land from the city.
   
2. Heartland Conumer Power District general manager and DSU December commencement speaker Mike McDowell echoes Senator Max Baucus's complaint that the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan asks rural communities to pay their fair share of the decades of debt we all have rung up. McDowell and Baucus don't want us to pay higher taxes on energy (where's McDowell work again?) or receive less in social programs for our relatively high numbers of veterans and senior citizens.
   
3. Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard's announcement of his latest cabinet appointments includes this tiny tidbit from Dennis:
   
   

   "I want to thank Kim Malsam-Rysdon for taking on this new role as Secretary of Social Services.... At a time when federal support is falling and economic conditions are increasing demands for services, leading this department is challenging."

   
   Catch that? Daugaard is grumbling that his Secretary of Social Services is getting less money from Washington. This just days after hobnobbing in Washington with Speaker-designate John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders who insist government needs to shrink.
   

Maybe this is why the Tea Party has such piddly rallies in South Dakota. Maybe this is why Kristi Noem still plays so coy about being tagged as a Tea Party doll. Maybe they all realize what I've been saying all along: the Tea Party/Grover Norquist pablum about getting Uncle Sam off our backs is a prescription for fiscal and economic disaster in South Dakota. We are a welfare state. Dennis Daugaard and Kristi Noem are unlikely to change that.

Chris Nelson Lands PUC Nod

Chris Nelson rides again! Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard has named him as heir to Dusty Johnson's soon-to-be vacated seat on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

After being term-limited out as Secretary of State and losing to Kristi Noem in the GOP primary for that U.S. House seat, Nelson has snagged a pretty nice consolation prize that will keep his brains and talent in Pierre serving the people.

But what's this -- no experience necessary?

Daugaard appointed Nelson despite the Secretary of State lacking any experience in the utilities industry, saying Nelson was the right person for the job.

"He's demonstrated time and again that he's willing to fairly interpret and apply our state laws without regard for politics," Daugaard said [David Montgomery, "Secretary of State to fill Johnson's PUC vacancy," Rapid City Journal, 2010.11.23].

No experience in utilities, and he gets the job? That's it—I am totally sending Daugaard a résumé. Make me Secretary of Education! I've at least been in a few classrooms! That's more experience than Nelson has for the job he just got.

The official Dems' line will surely echo what we heard from House Minority Leader Mitch Fargen yesterday on SDPB's Dakota Midday: same old bureaucracy, same old cronies.

But here's a more interesting narrative I see developing. Daugaard moves the chairs to give Dusty Johnson a better position from which to launch a statewide campaign... say, U.S. Senate in 2014. Daugaard finds a way to keep capable and decent public servant Nelson in the game. I see both of these moves as signals from the mainline South Dakota Republicans, the fellas who got a heck of a lot more votes than Rep.-Elect Kristi Noem did on November 2, that they're keeping their best guys in the chute for Tim Johnson's Senate seat. Noem won thanks to lots of outside Tea Party groups (and overheated conservative males searching "Kristi Noem bust" on Google Images) that pose a threat to the proper order of South Dakota Republicanism. The adults in the party aren't going to let that get out of hand.

My, we humans do tend to see patterns where there may be none, don't we?

Update 12:22 CST: The Dems' response, from party exec Erin McCarrick in a press release five minutes ago:

It looks like the Daugaard Administration is the new retirement home for State employees who are term limited or who have paid their dues to the Republican Party. How are we going to fix the huge budget deficit we are facing with the same players?

Just as many businesses are kept out of government contracts in Pierre through the no-bid process, possible qualified persons are being kept out of positions in Pierre. South Dakota should question the hiring process in Republican Administrations—are there no other qualified people in South Dakota, or do they already live in Pierre?

Dusty Johnson to Chief Daugaard's Staff

Say it ain't so, Dusty! After winning re-election by the largest margin of any statewide candidate just two weeks ago, Public Utilities Commissioner Dusty Johnson is telling the voters of South Dakota, Thanks but no thanks. KDLT reports Johnson has accepted Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard's offer to be the next governor's chief of staff.

How do you like that: the one Republican I vote to send to Pierre, and he bails on me. Aaarrgghh! ;-)

That puts Johnson's hands on a whole lot more levers in Pierre than just energy and telecommunications policy. Hmmm... I've heard people say the PUC is a good place to serve the people but not a great springboard for further political aspirations (who's the last PUC member to run for governor or Congress?). Could this be a signal that Daugaard is putting Dusty in the blocks for a bigger run in 2014?

Better yet, could this be a signal that that adults in the Republican Party are making sure they have someone other than Rep.-Elect Noem primed and ready to run for Tim Johnson's U.S. Senate seat in 2014? (Idle speculation is a blast!)

Daugaard gets to pick Johnson's replacement on the PUC (and we get to vote on two commissioners in 2012! Whoo-hoo!). My recommendation: pick Russ Olson! If Dusty can reject the mandate of 217,346 voters (more votes than any other contested politician got on our November 8 ballot), then Russ Olson can forsake the mandate given him by a measly 6,981 District 8 voters, leave the Senate, and take his utility expertise to the PUC.

And heck, let's keep playing dominoes: move Russ out of his Senate seat, and Daugaard could move Rep.-Elect Patty Stricherz to District 8 Senate. And then... well, what the heck! Let's appoint third-place finisher Gerry Lange back to the State House! Come on, Dennis, admit it: you guys like having Gerry in Pierre. He's a great storyteller, and he keeps the income-tax meme alive so Republicans up and down the ticket have something to run against. You need a conscience out there in Pierre—turn on the music, swap the chairs, and bring Gerry back to Pierre!

Back to reality: I have to admit, Johnson seems like a heck of a choice for chief of staff. He's sharp, quick, and ready to break out the boss stick. He's like Rahm Emanuel... with a goofier farm-boy smile. This could be a fun administration.

-------------------------
Update 12:37 CST: Seth Tupper on SDPB this noon says he thinks jumping to chief of staff puts Johnson in a less effective springboard position, since chief of staff, says Tupper, is a relatively anonymous position that lessens Johnson's public profile. Kevin Woster suggests Johnson will be a more visible chief of staff than we are used to. Woster says Daugaard doesn't really like public speaking and may lean on his chief of staff as a more active spokesperson.

Woster also notes that he thought the appointment of Tony Venhuizen as director of policy and communication would be the marquee news item, given that Venhuizen is Daugaard's son-in-law. But what's a guy to do when his daughter just happens to fall in love with one of the smartest, most ambitious young men in the state?

------------------------
Update 2010.11.23 11:38 CST: Dusty Johnson tells the Mitchell Republic that this job switch "is a very clear indication that my political aspirations are going to take a back seat." Yet he says he's taking the job because it "gives me an opportunity to make a much greater impact on how this state works." As I said, he'll have his hands on more levers. He'll be stirring more policy pots, meeting more people in the know (and with the dough!). Plus, if Johnson has been thinking about running for higher office, this move gets his quitting the PUC out of the way now so utility customers' disappointment has maximum time to fade before the next time Dusty comes a-slapping stickers on our chests.

I take Johnson at his word that he wants to serve the state. I do not dispute his reasoning that he can have a greater impact on the state as chief of staff than as PUC commissioner. I simply note that, even if Dusty's not playing Fantasy South Dakota Politics with the rest of us in the peanut gallery, Johnson's move goes in the plus column for future political prospects.

Daugaard Transition Team Online

Sibby's right: South Dakota actually elected a bunch of Obama Democrats. Just like Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard has set up a transition website. You can meet the dapper Mad Men (and Madison native and DSU English speech and theater grad Deb Bowman!) of the Daugaard transition team. You can even apply for a job in the Daugaard Administration.

Hmm... I wonder if the new governor would consider hiring an official state gadfly....

The Inauguration page is still "Coming soon!" Perfect spot for some public participation: set up a wiki, let folks revise at will the agenda for the January 8 event. I suggest a parade with a corps of tall men in plaid shirts performing synchronized drills with mailboxes. As they march by the reviewing stand, the plaid-mailbox corps can break out into an appropriately reworded songs from Oklahoma!: "So-o-o-o-uth Dakota! where the wind comes sweeping down the plain...."

Barbour for Daugaard: Here Comes the Fox News Money!

Update 2010.10.27 08:59 CDT: That's what I get for wishful thinking. I review Daugaard's pre-general filing, and sure enough, there's RGA PAC, in for $51, 456.60, about the same as the $50K Heidepriem got from the Democratic Governors Association. Haley Barbour also stopped in Wyoming to stump for Republican Matt Mead, who is ahead of Democratic challenger Leslie Petersen by at least 30 points. So much for worry.

-----------original wishful post-------------
Republicans must be getting nervous if they feel the need to send to send Republican Governors Association chair Haley Barbour all the way out to South Dakota to stump for Dennis Daugaard. Perhaps they timed this visit to change the narrative from what they perhaps anticipated would be a really bad KELO debate for Daugaard against hard-punching policy aficionado Democrat Scott Heidepriem. (I haven't seen the debate yet, but Bob Mercer calls it a "clear victory" for Heidepriem.)

Or maybe Barbour and Team Denny timed the visit to keep RGA's Fox News money off the campaign finance books for as long as possible. Reviewing Daugaard's pre-general and supplemental campaign finance filings, I saw no sign of donations from the Republican Governors Association. RGA gave the Rounds-Daugaard campaign $100,000 in 2006. RGA also has a million dollars from Fox News to spread around the country for Republicans in need.

Heidepriem and Daugaard each reported a quarter-million cash on hand for the last week of the campaign. Actually, amazingly, Heidepriem reported just about $10,000 more cash available for the last push than the GOP favorite who started raising cash three years ago. Daugaard has already burned up his cash advantage, and in debates, Heidepriem is taking a mighty swing at showing Daugaard does not have the policy-wonk advantage one might expect from a sitting liuetenant governor. I still get nervous about wishful thinking, but Haley Barbour's last-minute visit, and the RGA/Fox News money he may bring, may show Daugaard really, remarkably, unexpectedly, is a Republican in need.

---------------------
Don't forget, kids: If Mr. Barbour does bring Fox money, you need to tell us about it within 48 hours.

RMA Gov Poll Questions Pushy Compared to Rasmussen

I mentioned yesterday the RMA Research poll that shows South Dakota Democratic candidate for governor Scott Heidepriem within six points of Republican Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard, with over 20% of likely voters still up for grabs. That prompted a friend of mine who also happens to be a fervent Daugaard supporter to contact me. This friend received one of the phone calls from RMA Research for the most recent poll. Below are notes my friend took during the call. The questions asked make clear RMA Research was conducting a push poll geared to test messages for Team Heidepriem.

How likely are you to vote?

Pick what issue is most important to you in this election cycle:

• Jobs and the economy
• Decrease in Education spending
• No bid contracts to political groups
• some others (mostly anti-Dennis)

How's South Dakota's economy?

How's South Dakota's economy compared to other Plains states?

Who are you supporting? [CAH note: Whom. Rephrase the question as a statement: You are supporting ____. Direct object goes in the blank. You are supporting whom? You are supporting him....]

When did you decide who[m!!!] you were supporting?

• After the June Primary
• In the past 2 weeks
• in the last week

How strong is your support? [My friend replied "strong," but a later question repeated my friend's answer as "somewhat strong"—check the script, kids!]

Impression of these people?

• Daugaard
• Rounds
• Heidepreim
• (Bill) Janklow

Job Performance?

• Rounds as Gov
• Dennis as Lt. Gov
• Scott as Minority Leader
• Obama as President

How do these issues affect whether or not you're voting for Dennis?

• Raises to top executives who and then those executives contributions to Dennis.
• Increased spending and adding FTE's.
• 10 state airplanes that Dennis and Rounds use at their will, and Valhalla which Dennis and Rounds use as they please and was remodeled with taxpayer money.
• Decrease in education spending under Dennis' watch.

[The individual polled says each of the above items came with at least a paragraph-long description. The poll then asked if each item made the subject less likely, more likely, or had no effect on the subject's decision to vote for Dennis.

Rate the 4 previous issues on a scale of 1-4 if they make you really less likely to vote for Dennis, somewhat less likely, no effect or more likely.

After this information are you still somewhat strongly supporting Dennis? [This is where the pollster misquoted my friend's "strong" support cited earlier.]

For Secretary of State are you voting for Ben the Democrat or Jason Grant? [My friend says this was the question word for word.]

Compare RMA Research's questions and order with those used by Rasmussen, which last week found Daugaard leading Heidepriem 55% to 36%:

1* If the 2010 Election for Governor of South Dakota were held today would you vote for Republican Dennis Daugaard or Democrat Scott Heidepriem? (Please note that we split the survey to rotate the order of the candidate names, so while half will hear the Republican candidate first, the other half hears the Democrat mentioned first.)

• Dennis Daugaard
• Scott Heidepriem
• Some Other Candidate
• Not Sure

2* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

• Daugaard
• Heidepriem

3*A proposal has been made to repeal the health care bill and stop it from going into effect. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to repeal the health care bill?

4* The health care plan passed by Congress requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance. Do you Strongly Favor, Somewhat Favor, Somewhat Oppose, or Strongly Oppose a federal law that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance?

5* Should individual states have the right to opt out of the entire national health care plan?

6* Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

7* Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

8* Do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party Movement?

9* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

10* How would you rate the job Mike Rounds has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

Both polls are what they are. Looking just at the questions, Rasmussen's poll is trying to find where people stand on the candidates and the issues, while RMA's poll is trying to find the messages that may get people to move toward their candidate.

Polls Drastically Diverge on SD Governor's Race

Someone is doing really bad polling on the South Dakota gubernatorial race. Republican-run Rasmussen Reports finds Republican candidate Dennis Daugaard remaining above 50% against Democrat Scott Heidepriem. The specific numbers: Daugaard 55%, Heidepriem 36%, undecided 7%. Those figures do show a slow, steady, but far from cork-popping uptick in Heidepriem's numbers. Team Daugaard has cited internal polling done by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies pegging the race at 58–30 in favor of their guy.

Democrat-commissioned and local RMA Research releases numbers finding Daugaard's lead has actually shrunk to six points. After the eyebrow-raising 45–32 Daugaard–Heidepriem margin found by RMA several days ago, Team Heidepriem now touts RMA numbers showing the race at 41–35, advantage Daugaard. Another poll from Sioux Falls-based newcomer Nielson Brothers polling finds the governor's race even tighter, 43–40 for Daugaard.

These polls appear to be looking at different realities. The differences from Rasmussen are enormous. In nine days, someone is going to be seriously egg-faced.
----------------------
Some interesting details from Rasmussen:

1. Republicans are more solid behind Daugaard (77%) than we Dems are behind Heidepriem (63%). Given that Republicans outnumber Democrats here, Dems can't win if they don't line up behind their guy.
2. "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters who say the economy is improving support Heidepriem. Daugaard has the backing of 71% of those who feel it is getting worse." That seems odd: the lieutenant governor, the optimistic quasi-incumbent, gets more support from the pessimists. The Democrat voice of change wins a majority among those who think the economy is on the right track.

----------------------
Update 14:35 CDT: The Nielson Brothers poll on the Congressional race finds Stephanie Herseth Sandlin leading Kristi Noem 41.5% to 40.0%. That's within the margin of error; it's also within the margin of Marking—i.e., Indy B.-Thom, who gets 1.8%. NBP finds 16.5% of the electorate undecided on the Congressional race.

Republicans Backing Heidepriem and Herseth Sandlin...

...any Dems going red?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem has won the backing of some high-profile Republicans, including Republican State Senator Stan Adelstein, Don Frankenfeld, and Russ Janklow. GOP State Senator Gene Abdallah has expressed his approval of Heidepriem's leadership on the issue of competing with the Larchwood, Iowa, casino.

Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has traditionally pulled lots of Republican votes, and even in this tight year, she's able to tout a growing list of GOP endorsers, including former state legislator Casey Murschel and former Mickelson and Miller chief of staff Frank Brost. (And Brost endorses SHS and hopes for a Republican majority in Congress—go figure!)

Just curious: can anyone show me comparable Democrats crossing over to vote for the Republicans? As viewed from behind my partisan lenses, I can see plenty that our two top Democrats have to offer Republicans that they won't find in their own candidate: in Heidepriem's case, specific plans, real fiscal conservatism, and leadership; in Herseth Sandlin's case, specific plans, less partisanship, and the ability to articulate positions beyond the party talking points.

But what can Democrats find in either Dennis Daugaard or Kristi Noem that (a) they can't find in Heidepriem or SHS and (b) would actually appeal to Democrats?

Hard to be Optimistic with Worst Senior Poverty in Region

I'm sure glad Dennis Daugaard is filled with optimism. I suppose I'm just a party-pooper to intrude on such a pleasant, positive attitude with unpleasant facts of our state's problems.

But Dennis, study this interactive map from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Roll over South Dakota, and you'll find that, of the surrounding states, we are tied with Montana for the highest poverty rate in the region. The numbers:

• Overall Poverty: 13.6% (tied with Montana for 17th highest in the nation)
• Child Poverty: 16.8% (27th nationally; regionally, only Montana kids are worse off: 17.3%, 24th in US)
• Senior Poverty: 12.5% (9th nationally; worst in region)

In Minnesota and North Dakota, which both have income taxes, the overall poverty rates are 11.4% and 9.8% respectively. Hmmm....

Change and Food: Disconnect Between Daugaard/GOP Words and Actions

Here are a couple images to give my Republican firends heartburn. First, my Dem friends forward me a fun juxtaposition from the big Black Hills Pow Wow last weekend:
The big banner over the Pennington GOP's table says it's "Time for a Change." Right next to that rallying cry, a picture of Dennis Daugaard, the current Republican Lieutenant Governor and candidate for governor who would continue the policies of the last eight years and the general Republican domination of Pierre over the last century. Hmm... seems to me that voting for change in South Dakota means voting for a lot more Democrats than Republicans.

But hey, at least the Republicans are just being illogical and not doing something really awful, like giving voters lunch, right?

Oops. This image comes from the SDGOP, via Dakota Voice.
...and this screen cap comes from Daugaard's own website, reminding us of the free soup suppers he hosted during the primary.

Subtext to the bogus process issue Republicans are trying to manufacture: feeding Indians who vote for Democrats should be against the law. But feeding nice civilized South Dakotans who vote the right way is perfectly acceptable.

Voting for Daugaard? Ah, So You Like Cheating Kids...

Hey, all you folks giving Dennis Daugaard 70% favorables: are you paying attention to the status quo?

I generally don't like to give letters from the campaigns much space, but the following statement from Steve Jarding, Scott Heidepriem's campaign manager, gives a pretty straightforward assessment of the damage done under Mike Rounds's watch. Can we expect more of the same from a Governor Daugaard? Do you really want to take that chance?

Of all the misplaced priorities of the Rounds\Daugaard Administration, perhaps none is as alarming and inexplicable than their legacy with regard to our children. From the time Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard took office in 2003 through 2008 (before the national recession took hold) child poverty in South Dakota rose over 20 percent—we know it has continued to rise since then and likely has risen dramatically—official numbers for 2009 are not in yet. On top of this, South Dakota leads the nation in percentage of working moms and in the percentage of wage earners who hold multiple jobs. Many of these workers have no choice. They are trying to make ends meet with little support from Pierre.

One area of support for these children, these moms and these parents would have come in the form of the Birth to Three program. But Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard inexplicably did not support this program. Nor did they support the Pre-K program in South Dakota. Yet, literally every empirical study shows that these programs are arguably the best investment a state can make. Kids who have access to Birth to Three and Pre-K programs stay in school, get better grades, are healthier, are less likely to get in trouble, graduate in higher numbers, make a better living—the list goes on and on. But Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard do not support them—but they did support giving $38 million to TransCanada to build an oil pipeline they were building anyway. But they won't sell one of their taxpayer funded airplanes. But they won't give up their taxpayer funded vacation house in Custer State Park. But they will give their 19 top executive staff a $533,000 pay raise (of which Dennis Daugaard collected $63,000 of it back into his campaign coffers), and they will raid federal funds given to South Dakota for education and the poor, sticking the money into the general fund to spend covering up their debt -- all while our child poverty rate skyrockets.

We have to take South Dakota back. The lives of thousands of South Dakota's children are depending on it. Literally [links mine; text from Steve Jarding, campaign e-mail, 2010.10.12].

Would anyone care to point out which of Team Heidepriem's arguments here are wrong... or why you'd be willing to take four more years of this kid-unfriendly governing from a Daugaard Administration?

Heidepriem Cites Keystone Leaks; Daugaard Digs Dollars Über Alles

Jon Walker wrote up our gubernatorial candidates' views on energy in that Sioux Falls paper Monday. Among other important issues, Walker asked the candidates whether they support TransCanada's Keystone pipelines.

Democrat Scott Heidepriem, who represented South Dakota landowners in their fight against TransCanada's eminent domain effort, hits all the right notes—not just green notes, but red-blooded South Dakotan notes:

Heidepriem: I can't argue it's a good thing particularly from the three leaks. Land was disrupted. It took a lot of fertile farm ground with almost no jobs created. They used a heavy hand to do that with eminent domain. That's not being a good corporate citizen. There should be no incentive on contractor excise and sales tax. Why does South Dakota feel the need to hemorrhage citizen tax dollars? [quoted by Jon Walker, "On Energy, Candidates for Governor Vow to Be Strong Voice," sidebar, that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.10.04]

Hey, Scott! Where'd you first read about those three leaks? Oh yeah....

Republican Dennis Daugaard apparently isn't worried about oil leaks, continued addiction to dirty fuel, weak job production, tax refunds for foreign oil corporations, or violations of South Dakotans' property rights. He thinks those property tax dollars make everything hunky-dory:

Daugaard: It's good. It allows us to reduce our dependency on oil from unfriendly nations. Most landowners I've spoken with are happy to have the pipe under their property. ... They still pay us $25 million a year in property taxes [quoted by Walker, 2010].

Pay close attention, fellow voters: the Republican here is saying something is great because it pumps more money into the government coffers, while the Democrat is speaking up for individual property rights instead of tax breaks for foreigners.

Does anyone else smell irony there?

Daugaard Policy Armor Cracks; Heidepriem Primed for Offensive

South Dakota GOP candidate for governor Dennis Daugaard must be reading too much War College. Daugaard apparently believes the propaganda that the campaign is over, it's a blowout, it's hopeless for Heidepriem... believes it so much that he's starting to slip.

First Team Daugaard puts out an ad so doggedly designed to deny reality that even mild-mannered journalist Bob Mercer, not the most obviously liberal journalist in the state, felt obliged to point out that the ad outright lies when it claims we balanced our state budget without raising taxes. Mercer catalogs a few tax and fee increases propping up our state budget; contact your local county commission and school board to learn the tax hikes they've had to pile onto your local assessment to make up for the state's budgetary neglect.

Then Daugaard tells nursing homes that they probably won't get the $21 million in medicaid stimulus Washington sent them. "We need to guard against the increasing tendency to look for the government to save us," Daugaard lectured the nursing home workers' convention in Sioux Falls Wednesday, even as he defended Pierre's pouring that stimulus money into the general fund to save our budget. That's the same shell game Daugaard and his boss are playing with the $26.3 million in education stimulus approved in August, diverting it from its intended purpose and guaranteeing it won't have the stimuluative effect lawmakers intended.

Now Daugaard skips a great opportunity to defend his record and his plans on a major state policy issue. Tonight's Inside KELOLand (10:30 p.m. CST) will discuss the recent Zogby poll, sponsored by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, on South Dakota voters' views of K-12 education. Democrat Scott Heidepriem will be there. So will an ASBSD official. Daugaard was invited, but he won't be there. Team Heidepriem is telling supporters that Daugaard said he doesn't want to debate this issue with Heidepriem. Maybe Daugaard, like fellow Republican Kristi Noem, is just getting tired of having his indefensible claims challenged and thinks he can coast to victory in November with fluffy ads and nice hair.

Whatever Daugaard's reason for skipping this discussion, Heidepriem gets free shots for a half hour on the highest-rated TV station in the state. And what will those free shots include? Paraphrasing the latest Team Heidepriem e-mail, Heidepriem will likely cite various expenditures the state has incurred even while breaking its promise to schools and shorted K-12 education this year:

• Rounds and Daugaard happily sent TransCanada an extra $10.5 million in tax refunds to incentivize a pipeline TransCanada had already built through our state.
• The current administration has given over $533,000 dollars in pay raises to their top 19 executive branch staffers... who have turned around and given Daugaard over $62,000 in campaign contributions.
• They've refused to sell any of the state airplanes.
• They closed the Black Hills Playhouse while spending over $200K to renovate "Valhalla," the historic Peter Norbeck cabin just up the trail that Governor Rounds has turned into his personal playground.
  

Tonight's KELO broadcast is the beginning of what could be a big media week for Heidepriem. His big 30-minute documentary is already making the rounds at Dems events and hits the airwaves on all the major South Dakota channels this week Thursday. And by dodging a discussion of education and papering over bad policy with cheery optimism and plainly false claims, Daugaard may be making it that much easier for Heidepriem to grab folks' attention and make the big push for November.

Education: Daugaard Hopes and Wishes, Heidepriem Offers Practical Policies

I feel another elephant-in-the-room commercial coming on... although Mr. Sanborn disagrees.

Dennis Daugaard's new education plan is a lot like the impression I've gotten of Daugaard himself during the gubernatorial campaign: decent, reasonable, mild... and missing the biggest point. Ask any teacher, administrator, or school board member to name the biggest problem facing South Dakota's K-12 system, and I'll bet nine times out of ten, the answer will be "Funding." Yet as Rutland's Dr. Fahrenwald observes, the Daugaard plan does not address the heart of the funding problem.

Oh, Daugaard does mention funding. His "Commitment to Funding Education" gets a full page and spillover. He speaks of hope and consider and scrutiny and conversation. He even recognizes the basic market fact that we may need to pay more to recruit and retain the best teachers. But Daugaard never says what practical policies he would pursue to put more money into our schools. Daugaard plays my old Republican line: he thinks everything can be solved by magic. Cut regulations, don't raise taxes, wait for the economy to recover, and presto! the problem will solve itself! (What is it this year with Republicans and magic tricks?)

Daugaard ignores his own administration's raiding of new stimulus assistance to reduce state expenditures on education this year (Dennis, M. Mike: if you want to recover from the recession, you have to spend the stimulus dollars in addition to already allocated spending). Daugaard doesn't even really commit to increasing funding. Instead, he defends the Legislature's decision this year to deny our schools the funding increase they were promised by law while giving a foreign oil giant TransCanada $38 million in tax breaks.

Daugaard's challenger, Democrat Scott Heidepriem, is all over the Republicans on this issue. Heidepriem sets some clear funding objectives: he plans to restore education funding to Janklow-era levels of 39% of the general fund, up from the 31% to which the Rounds Administration has let it drop. Heidepriem then tells us where he'll get the money to make that happen:

1. Require the State’s Education budget to be adopted by the midpoint of each legislative session.
2. Close the Loophole in the Contractor’s Excise Tax and restore TransCanada’s $10.5 million for education.
3. Reduce the size of state government in several ways including the elimination of “phantom” state FTEs (Full Time Employees).
4. Sell the State’s unnecessary “surplus” airplanes.
5. Eliminate “no-bid” contracts where state business is currently doled out without a competitive, free-market process [from Heidepriem campaign press release, 2010.09.15].

Now this release doesn't guarantee those numbers add up to the 39% level. Passing the budget earlier only shorten the procrastination period and move the rush back four weeks. Selling the planes will provide mostly a one-time savings, though there will still be ongoing savings from maintenance. But shutting the tax loopholes and making TransCanada pay its fair share are definite winners for education. And where Daugaard's faith in the free market excuses him to sit around and do nothing, Heidepriem actually applies free-market principles to government contract procedures to save us money.

On education, Daugaard is offering stale free-market fundamentalist wishes and dreams. Heidepriem is offering a practical plan. Advantage Heidepriem.

Daugaard on Education: Repeal Forced Consolidation and Reserve Limits

Nice of Dennis Daugaard to rejoin the local-control chorus. His just-released education plan includes a promise to repeal the 100-student minimum and forced consolidation imposed on South Dakota's small school disticts. (Munsterman lives!)

Forced consolidation came to us courtesy of our Republican-controlled State Legislature in the form of House Bill 1082, signed into law by Daugaard's boss, Governor M. Michael Rounds, in 2007. But this isn't a purely partisan issue. Two of my favorite Republicans, Kristi Noem and Russell Olson, voted against HB 1082 in an earlier form when the minimum district size was 130. Alas, they jumped in to vote aye with most of their State House colleagues once the minimum was cut to 100.

Plus, Daugaard's opponent in the gubernatorial race, Democratic Senator Scott Heidepriem, and fellow prominent Dems Jerstad, Turbak Berry, and Nesselhuf supported HB 1082.

Another remarkable assertion of local control in education on Daugaard's part is his vow to repeal restrictions on reserve accounts. Daugaard deems it "unfortunate" that school reserves have become a political football over the years." One of the main players punting that football around was his boss, the Governor.

I am pleased to see the Republican in the race get back to Republican principles on local control. But on at least these two issues, Daugaard is certainly running away from positions his boss has supported over the last eight years.
---------------------------------
Bonus—This Is Only a Test: Unfortunately, Daugaard also calls for establishing more standardized exams, particularly in math and science. We're already spending $5 million at the state level on tests; couldn't we drop all the bubble-filling and direct that money toward useful teaching and learning experiences?