Madville Times Voters Guide: The Candidates!

Regular readers will find no surprises here. For the record, here are the people who will get my vote on Tuesday:

Lake County Commission: Craig Johannsen, Chris Giles, and Dan Bohl. Johannsen has served well on the commission and deserves to continue his good work. Giles and Bohl are the best communicators of the bunch, certainly better than their fellow Republican Roger Hageman, and local government requires people who can communicate. Giles and Bohl also bring good experience and good sense to the table, so they make my list as the only Republicans who will get my vote this year. I might have voted the straight Dem ticket, but Gene Anderson's DUI arrest has embarrassed the party and demonstrated a profound lack of common sense.

District 8 House: Mitch Fargen and Gerry Lange. Fargen and Lange complement each other well: youth and energy, experience and wisdom. They have strong connections to agriculture that GOP candidates Jerry Johnson and Patricia Stricherz lack. Johnson has shown little enthusiasm for the job; Stricherz has not shown a full understanding of the job. Johnson and Stricherz appear more likely to just do what the party leaders tell them to do rather than vigorously and proactively representing the interests of District 8. Fargen and Lange both have shown more clear vision for the changes South Dakota needs.

District 8 Senate: Scott Parsley. Parsley has a better grasp of a wider range of issues. He works in energy and has been involved in wind power development from its beginnings in South Dakota. His wife is a long-time educator. Parsley helped create the American Coalition for Ethanol and our local Habitat for Humanity chapter. GOP opponent Russell Olson is a beneficiary of Republican patronage and big money. Olson also bases far too much of his campaign on specious claims (e.g., touting his role as one of 74 co-sponsors HB 1123, a toothless exercise in paperwork, as evidence of real achievements on alternative energy; using "local control" and patently false interpretations of demographics to dodge taking responsibility for properly funding education). Olson says stuff; Parsley does stuff. Pick actions over words: pick Parsley.

Public Utilities Commission: Matt McLarty. I know, I haven't paid any more attention to this race than you have. But I still have a burr under my saddle over the PUC's dealings with TransCanada. The PUC could have done more to protect South Dakotans against the encroachment of a foriegn oil company on our sovereignty. If I had the chance, I'd advocate throwing all three out. As it is, we only get to pick 'em off one at a time. Fair enough. Toss Gary Hanson out this year, see if the PUC gets the message.

U.S. House of Representatives: Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. Now is not the time to send another Chamber of Commerce Republican to represent South Dakota in the midst of a Democratic Congress. Now is also not the time to give more power to people who think health insurance is about confidence, not affordability (see Chris Lien's SDPB debate), or who think abortion bans like IM11 actually constitute good public policy.

U.S. Senate: Tim Johnson. I'm still torqued at the Johnson campaign's stalking and smear tactics in March and subsequent attacks on local Dems for questioning those tactics. They didn't need to go there to beat the feckless Joel Dykstra campaign. But is that enough to make me put South Dakota over a barrel by sending another impotent fundagelical Republican to sit in the Senate and do nothing while the Democrats clean up President Bush's mess? I think not. Johnson has shown he can do the job even while recovering from a stroke, and he's only getting better.

U.S. President: Barack Obama. Hope. Change. Citizen engagement. A competent Vice-President. Real family values. Jim Dobson nowhere near the White House. Google for Government. Restoring America's image. Respect for women. History. A campaign built on reality, not Newspeak. Image and substance. Colin Powell said it best: Barack Obama is a transformational figure... and America and her politics need some serious transformation.

Madville Times Voters Guide: The Amendments!

Jon Hunter beats me to the punch, posting his recommendations on the constitutional amendments on our ballot before I do. Nuts!

One little quirk before we get to business: the Madison Daily Leader publisher writes that there are three constitutional amendments on the November 4 ballot.

What? I flip through my voters guide: Amendments G, H, I, J: that's four! Ah, Jon Hunter must be using Firefox: I discovered a glitch the other day on the Secretary of State's website that causes a Amendments I and J (as well as IM9) not to display. This glitch only happens in Firefox, not IE. (Don't worry—Chris Nelson's people are working on it!)

But anyway, our man Hunter weighs in on Amendments G and H, characterizing them as "housekeeping" amendments that we should pass.

On Amendment G, the measure to increase the mileage reimbursement for legislators, Hunter and I agree. A quirk of our Constitution limits the reimbursement for a legislator's trip out to Pierre at the beginning of the session and a legislator's trip home at the end to five cents a mile. Legislators get the state rate (32 cents per mile, says Hunter) for every other trip. We're not talking a massive expenditure here: 105 legislators × $0.28 more per mile × 400 miles (one trip out, one trip back) = $11,340 a year. Heck, we could fund that by cutting the Governor's press secretary's pay 10%.

Legislators are state employees; they deserve a fair rate of reimbursement for all of their travel expenses, just like every other state employee. Vote yes on G.

Hunter and I disagree on Amendment H (and thank goodness—what fun would it be if we agreed on everything?). Where Hunter sees housekeeping, I see more power for corporations. Perhaps some business types can better explain to me the practical ramifications of South Dakota's apparently old-fashioned and more restrictive rules on corporations, but in my ignorance, I'm adhering to principle (have fun with that one, commenters!). Corporations have too much power already. We recognize them as persons, for Pete's sake! Amendment H would limit shareholder power and make it easier for corporations to incur debt (mortgage meltdown, anyone?). Vote No on H.

Hunter does not address Amendments I or J in yesterday's editorial. Amendment I gives the Legislature the option to extend even-year sessions from the current 35 days to 40 days, the same length as odd-year sessions. I can sympathize with Senator Jerry Apa's argument on the ballot question pamphlet that a longer session just gives legislators more time to procrastinate. (I can also laugh at Apa's argument that a longer session means cities, counties, and schools will have to pay lobbyists overtime to stay in Pierre another week "defending these groups from proposed legislation"...an amusing reflection of Apa's apparent view that legislation is always a monster coming to gobble us up.) Still, Mitch Fargen has told me that one problem in the even-year sessions is that revenue estimates don't come out until later in February, leaving legislators scrambling to craft a working budget. Five more days isn't much, but in the crucible of late February, it could do a lot of good. And the legislation doesn't mandate 40 days; it simply gives the legislators the option if they feel they need it. I'm a choice guy, so that helps me lean just slightly in favor of the proposal. Neither I nor the Republic will be crushed if Amendment I fails, but I'll mark Yes on I.

Finally, Amendment J: repealing term limits. This one's easy: you betcha! We've got term limits: they're called elections. If you like your legislator, keep her (or him). If your legislator is a meathead, you get a chance to oust her every two years. Again, as a choice guy, I'm all about this one. Don't just vote yes—vote Heck Yes! on Amendment J.

Coming up, the Madville Times Voters Guide gets personal and recommends candidates... stay tuned!

Update 2008.10.29 17:25: Our man Hunter comes out against Amendment I. Still waiting for Amendment J....

Update 2008.10.31 06:55: There it is! Hunter editorializes in favor of Amendment J. Hunter confuses the State Legislature with the U.S. Senate, saying that "one-third of the legislature could change in a single election," when in fact the entire Legislature could change in one year (consider District 8 itself: we will have new people in all three of our seats). But Hunter gets the big point: "The South Dakota legislature has plenty of turnover even without term limits, and we lose valuable experience when we force out legislators unnecessarily." Let the voters rule: Vote Yes on J!

Madville Times Voters Guide: Vote No on All Three Initiated Measures

Hey! I know a lot of your have already filled out your ballots (my parents both have, so there's no more arguing with my dad, just teasing him about President Obama). But I'm ready to offer the official Madville Times Voters Guide for 2008!

First, let's tackle the initiatives. You can review the attorney general explanations and argument for and against in this PDF file from the state. I'll also link to each measure's text below.

Initiated Measure 9: Vote No. Almost every analysis of this law you read says it bans short selling, a stock market game about which I will confess my ignorance. I was surprised to see former attorney general Mark Meierhenry fronting the movement to pass IM9. He notes that IM9 doesn't mention short selling. It just helps enforce federal law in South Dakota. A former attorney general can't be wrong... can he?

Well, from what I hear, there is some disagreement among the lawyers on the interpretation of this law. However, I would suggest that if there already is federal law (and the Securities Exchange Commission) to govern this stock practice, a state law on the issue is unnecessary... and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Wall Street could use a good whacking, but South Dakota won't deliver that whacking with IM9.

Initiated Measure 10: Vote No. I hate going with the crowd, but everybody and their ugly sister is giving this measure the thumbs down. Republicans and Democrats, Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO... even the Madison City Commission and the Madison Central School Board stuck their necks out to say IM10 is bad.

And so will I. Initiated Measure 10 sounds good: It promises to hold elected officials accountable, prevent them from using public resources for private gain, limit lobbyists... heck, they even throw in a version of Tom Coburn and Barack Obama's Google for Government.

But we already have a law that restricts using public funds to influence elections. The Governor has already inaugurated a website to put government records online. All IM10 really adds is a chilling effect on public speech by any elected official or public employee. The "public resources" clause in IM10 will silence student political groups on our public university campuses. It will probably prohibit Madison High School from hosting candidate forums (fora!) like the one I participated in last April and the big one coming up tomorrow night (heavyweights Parsley vs. Olson! Fargen and Lange vs. Stricherz and Johnson tag team match! County Commission battle royale! Be there!).

IM10 starts with a noble goal and creates a legal mess. Plus, I'm taking a big slurp of Pat Powers's Kool-Aid and wondering why the folks who put IM10 on the ballot, a group committed to openness in politics, won't tell us who's funding their campaign. IM10 smells of hypocrisy of shadowy monkey business.

Initiated Measure 11: Vote No. Again. We already voted a similar abortion ban down in 2006. This retread abortion ban comes from folks who appear to derive their sense of self-worth by perpetually standing on the street corners and going before KELO's cameras to proclaim their righteousness.

Readers of this blog have already seen my extensive arguments against IM11 and similar anti-woman, anti-Constitution, anti-reality legislation. To summarize:

• Abortion bans don't stop abortions.
• IM11 enshrines bad science into law.
• IM11 makes women second-class citizens.
• IM11 is fundamentally misogynist.
• Pregnancy is nobody's business but the mother's.
  
• IM11 subjects women to greater health risks.
  

The supporters of IM11 prove with their own law that abortion is not murder: IM11 treats abortion as a lesser felony rather than imposing murder penalties on those perpetrating what IM11 would declare a crime. Here, the local fundagelicals agree with the local liberals: IM11 is a bad law.

We're all pro-life. But being pro-life is about providing health care and education, promoting peace, and a million things more than bloviating about abortion every election. Vote No on IM11.