Heidepriem Casino Position Draws Republican Support on Leadership

I'm still not jumping up and down to wage casino wars with Iowa. Yet I note with interest a letter from State Senator Gene Abdallah, Republican from District 10, essentially endorsing the position of Democratic gubernatorial candidate and fellow State Senator Scott Heidepriem that South Dakota needs to address the Larchwood casino issue.

Senator Abdallah's critique still relies too much on scarcity thinking, arguing that Iowa's gain is our loss. However, his letter also hints at a leadership issue that can offer voters a reason to replace the current regime with someone new. Abdallah mentions legislation he and Heidepriem co-sponsored that would have directed the governor to negotiate with Iowa and try to work out a casino arrangement more amenable to all parties.

Now I'm not sure what leverage South Dakota would have in asking Iowa to consider our concerns with their economic development projects. Iowa has done the same on the Hyperion refinery, which will dump all sorts of externalities on our neighbors across the river, and South Dakota's response has been, Buzz off!

Nonetheless, Senator Abdallah's letter highlights a problem a lot of Republicans see with the current administration: a lack of leadership, an inability to get out in front of issues and bang the drum for South Dakota's interests. And Abdallah is a pretty prominent Republican, giving a pretty pointed shout-out to the Democratic gubernatorial candidate just as the campaign season hits full throttle.

Watch out: the Heidepriem campaign may be able to deliver more Republican votes than you think.

Abdallah Proposes Weakening Sex Offender Laws

If Patricia Stricherz is reading the news this weekend, she can e-mail me and say, "I told you so!" Stricherz, one of the GOP's unsuccessful legislative candidates here in District 8 last year, caught grief from me last October for saying one of her legislative priorities was to relax sex offender registry rules for juvenile offenders.

Now a Republican who manages to win elections, State Senator Gene Abdallah (R-10/Sioux Falls), is calling for making exceptions for juveniles and maybe others on the sex offender list:

"We're looking at the possibility of making exceptions to get off the list after a certain period of time depending on the seriousness of the offense," Abdallah said.

Senator Gene Abdallah is the chairman of the committee looking at the changes. Abdallah says some of the offenders on the sex offender registry don't deserve to be on it their entire life.

"We've had examples of 16 and 18 year olds dating, and he's considered an adult at 18, and she's not, and something happens and he gets on the sex offender registry and is on there for life," Abdallah said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Changes to Sex Offender Registry Considered," KELOLand.com, 2009.08.14].

Something happens... um, Gene, since when did you stop believing in free will and personal responsibility? This sounds dangerously like sexist (yes, check the senator's pronouns) boys-will-be-boys excuse-making. Just how well will "something happened" fly as an excuse for lighter sentences for other crimes?

More hilarity ensues as Abdallah tries to avoid headlines like mine:

Abdallah doesn't want to call it weakening the laws, he says he is still in favor of keeping some of the most serious offenders on the registry for life.

"I'm not in favor of weakening or diluting any laws when it comes to sex offenders or crime for that matter, but I do feel we should be fair," Abdallah said.

Being fair to some of those that are serving an online life sentence, on the sex offender registry* [Dunsmoor, 2009.0814].

I'm o.k. with fairness. I'm willing to have a discussion about whether we can fairly impose on certain criminals lifelong restrictions on where they can live and work. Maybe fairness does require weakening the law (although SDCL 22-24B-19 already spells out a number of criteria that allow offenders to get off the list). But Senator Abdallah does language and logic harm (once again!) with his clumsy word games. Right now, an adult having sex with a child is a sex offender. If Senator Abdallah wants to declare that such an adult is not a criminal, or is a less heinous criminal, just because the adult is dating that child or is in love with that child, then he should just say so and call his proposal what it is: a weakening of the sex offender law.

*Dang it, there's another one of those sloppy KELO sentence fragments!

Senator Abdallah Stinks up Airwaves with Death Penalty Nonsense

I'm listening to State Senator Gene Abdallah tie himself in rhetorical knots on this noon's South Dakota Public Radio's Dakota Midday. In a discussion of the South Dakota Supreme Court's overturning of Briley Piper's death penalty, Senator Abdallah makes the following "arguments" (I use the term with extreme generosity) in favor of the death penalty:

1. The death penalty is a deterrent: a dead criminal can't commit more crimes.
2. Two legislators who advocated repealing the death penalty were also pro-choice on abortion.
   
3. Lengthy appeals are a waste of resources; we should set a time limit and speed up these trials.
4. Life in prison for convicted killers puts other inmates at risk; do we want to have to explain to the parents or spouse of a DUI convict serving his month how he was killed by a convicted killer we could have just executed?
5. So many people read in the papers that so many killers have escaped. And they kill again!
   

I respect Mr. Abdallah's work in law enforcement and government. However, statements like the above make me want to get out the "What the heck are you thinking?!" blog-stick. Going down the flow:

1. The debate about deterrence usually refers to persuading other potential criminals not to commit crimes. Incapacitation and deterrence are two different things.
2. Rather than scream red herring, Bruce Gray, a death penalty opponent also appearing on the program, politely registers his displeasure at being lumped in with the pro-choice political camp. Gotta argue the issues before you, Gene, not the straw men you want to keep resurrecting when the argument gets tough.
   
3. Funny: at the end of the show, I think I heard Abdallah say we should never question the amount of resources we dedicate toward law enforcement. Yet he thinks we spend too much on capital trials and appeals. Kangaroo courts, anyone?
4. Funny: sounds like prison's a pretty awful place... bad enough to maybe deter folks from driving drunk and committing other lesser crimes that would get them locked up with those dangerous convicted murderers.
5. Evidence? Evidence? Not one specific example. Not one name. Not one article. For Pete's sakes, you're a state senator going on the radio. Even if they called you just ten minutes ago, bring your notes! Google something! Here, I'll help: link link link!
   

I do appreciate Abdallah's willingness to join the public discussion on a controversial issue. Now if he could just make sense.

Senate Bill 70 Advances: Buckaroo-ism Afoot!

You may recall from last week my discussion of Senate Bill 70, a measure that eliminates the 48-hour waiting period to buy a pistol. At first, I thought this was sheer buckaroo-ism, distracting legislation that increases the risk of gun violence and boosts the NRA rating of our legislators. The next day, a quote from Senator Gene Abdallah in that Sioux Falls paper led me to believe that the bill was about bookkeeping, not buckaroo-ism:

All that we're doing now is creating a lot of paper for the sheriff's offices that isn't necessary, because the Brady Bill is instant and that covers everything [State Senator Gene Abdallah, quoted by Sheri Levisay, "What's with That Law? Legislation Will Repeal Waiting Period to Buy Pistol," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.01.22].

But I was wrong: federal legislation provides for a usually instant computer background check, but the Brady Bill five-day waiting period expired when that system went online in 1998. Therefore, right now, the only thing making you wait a couple days to buy that pistol is the law that Senators Olson, Abdallah, et al. want to eliminate.

Maybe the jury is still out on whether instant pistol buys lead to more violence (readers, I welcome your links!). However, we're talking about handguns, a tool that makes it possible for one upset individual to kill himself or others with the flick of a finger. I don't think it's unreasonable to deem the purchase of such a device something worth waiting for.

Alas, the State Senate Judiciary committee, including Senators Heidepriem and Turbak Berry, appears to disagree. Judiciary voted yesterday to pass the bill on to the full Senate yesterday.

Come on, kids! Don't let the NRA push you around. Let's keep that 48-hour waiting period. People who think they absolutely have to have a pistol right now! are the last people to whom we should hand a pistol.