Betty Olson has her name on another gun bill! Whoo-hoo!

Actually, Senator Brock Greenfield (R-2/Clark) is leading the way on Senate Bill 162, a proposal to allow legislators to carry concealed weapons in the State Capitol.

Freeze, Brock—tell us the last time you or any other legislator experienced a threat in the Capitol that would have warranted response with a firearm. If you can cite any such instance of clear and present threat, tell us the last time state troopers were not available to handle said threat.

Conservatives like Greenfield, Olson, and its House sponsors DiSanto, Latterell, Russell, and Stalzer should revolt at a bill like Senate Bill 162. Isn't a situation where only the government has guns exactly the tyranny gun nuts dread?

Imagine I approach Senator Corey Brown at the Capitol for a sincere Cory-to-Corey chat about how his efforts to undermine Independents and ballot initiatives are unjust (and about how he spells his name wrong). After a few moments of looking past me, he opens his jacket, exposes the pistol holstered under his shoulder, and says, "I'm sorry—are you talking to me?" Legislative immunity won't excuse Brown's shooting me, but I'm not sure I like the power imbalance.

If we're going to let legislators swagger about the Capitol packing heat, doesn't fairness (not to mention Sean Connery in The Untouchables) demand that we let everyone carry a gun? Ah ha! In comes House Bill 1183, where Olson and Greenfield switch sponsor slots and call for repealing the entire ban on concealed weapons in the Capitol. I think they're just trying to trick us into "compromise."

But HB 1183 exposes another aspect of gun-advocate thinking that I don't get. HB 1183 removes the Capitol from the general ban on guns in courthouses, but then it writes a new statute that makes it a misdemeanor to carry a pistol in the Capitol unless you carry it concealed, under a concealed weapons permit. Why would you make it a crime to openly carry a gun into the Capitol but not to sneak a gun in in your britches (or, in Senator Olson's case, your mountain lion-skin purse)?

The State Capitol, our great Temple of Democracy and Reason, is no place for guns. Both House Bill 1883 and Senate Bill 162 are expressions of unwarranted fear and a lack of faith in our institutions of civil society. Senate Bill 162 is gun control at its worse, where only outlaws and legislators have guns. (I invite you to discern which are which.)

p.s.: I can imagine a similar critique of Senate Bill 105, in which Senator Betty Olson and numerous co-sponsors asked that legislators be given access to the Capitol complex tunnels. If legislators get to venture into the underworld, so ought we all! Senator Olson withdrew SB 105 yesterday; I say bring it back, bigger and better, for all South Dakotans!

22 comments

Todd Epp posts data on what it takes to be a member of the 1% in South Dakota—$404,010. That threshold for earning more than 99% of South Dakotans is higher than the national threshold of $380,000 and higher than in every adjoining state but Minnesota ($413,748) and North Dakota (boosted by oil barons to $502,393).

The numbers come from the Economic Policy Institute, which divides average income for one-percenters and average income for the rest of us and maps those ratios as measures of income inequality in each state:

map-pdf-1pct-top-to-bottom

(Click to embiggen!)

 

By that measure, South Dakota's hoi polloi are farther behind Sanford and friends than are the proletariat of every adjoining state other than North Dakota. The ratio of South Dakota's average one-percenter income to everyone else's is the 16th-highest in the nation.

If we compare the average salaries EPI calculates here with the average teacher salaries for 2012, South Dakota looks worse. Nationwide in 2012, the average teacher's salary was 29% higher than the average salary for the masses. Teachers are far from joining the one-percenters, but their training and work earn them higher-than average pay in 43 states and the District of Columbia. South Dakota is one of six places that deems teachers worth less than the average salary of the 99%:

  • In Colorado, teachers make 1% less than that average.
  • In Kansas, 1.7% less.
  • Nebraska, 5.2% less.
  • Virginia, 12.5% less.
  • South Dakota, 22.2% less.
  • North Dakota, 22.9% less.

These data dispute the response South Dakota's Republican lawmakers offer that low pay and workforce shortages aren't unique to the teaching profession, that everyone else gets lower pay as well in South Dakota. The average pay for the 99% in South Dakota ranks 14th in the nation. Our teacher pay ranks last, and our ratio of teacher pay to the 99%'s average pay is the second lowest in the nation.

From 2009 to 2012, income grew for South Dakota's one-percenters by 42.7%, the tenth-highest rich-getting-richer rate in the nation. Post-recession income for the rest of us grew 7.0%, the second-highest rate in the nation (thank you, corn!). South Dakota's 1% captured 53.4% of post-recession income growth; Minnesota's top hats captured 56.0% of that new income. Things could be worse: in seventeen states, the top 1% accounted for all income growth from 2009 to 2012—in other words, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Remember, income inequality threatens economic opportunity and democracy. When wealth concentrates, power concentrates. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this fact in what appears to have been the healthier democracy of 1830s America. If South Dakota wants democracy, it needs to find ways to share the wealth with teachers and all members of the 99% instead of letting the richest take more than half of the pie.

15 comments

While South Dakota Republicans chip away at the initiative and referendum, South Dakota Democrats are trying to protect the will of the people. Every Democrat in the South Dakota Legislature is backing House Bill 1175, a measure to insulate ballot measures from legislative tinkering. The bill text is brief:

If a measure is submitted to the voters of the state, legislation may not be proposed to affect the will of the voters for a period of one year after the vote on the measure, or the date of enactment, whichever is later.

Notice that HB 1175 would work both ways. If an initiated measure like our minimum-wage increase passed, legislators could not amend or repeal that popularly enacted law for one year. If a referendum succeeded and we repealed a law, legislators could not try to put that law back into effect for a year. Had HB 1175 been in effect in 2013, after we referred and repealed Governor Daugaard's really nasty and counterproductive education reform law in 2012, the Legislature would not have been able to propose bills to restore that law in full or in part; they would not have been able to resurrect the Critical Needs Teaching Scholarship, the sole productive component of that messy education reform package, until 2014.

On the other hand, if an initiative or referendum were to fail, HB 1175 would prevent legislators from revisiting those measures. If voters rejected an initiative to raise sales tax to increase funding for education and health care (as we did in 2012 on Initiated Measure 15), the next year's Legislature could not take up a bill to enact such an increase for such a purpose. I assume that legislators could take up a bill to increase the sales tax for other purposes, and they could take up a bill to increase funding for education and health care by different means.

A failed referendum vote—i.e., a vote in which voters chose to leave the challenged law in place—would lock that law in place in a way that simple legislative passage does not. Had Governor Daugaard's education reform withstood referendum in 2012, it would have become the voters' will, and HB 1175 would have protected it from any amendment in the 2013 session. Lawmakers could not have acted on a change of heart or fixed any gaps in that law until 2014.

I have argued that South Dakota Republicans are trying to weaken the initiative and referendum not for principle or public welfare but for pure political self-interest: they tend to lose initiatives and referenda, and they don't want the pesky electorate messing with GOP power and plans. My Republican readers could retort that Democrats are backing HB 1175 for the same selfish political reasons: South Dakota Democrats see initiatives and referenda as policymaking, organizing, and recruiting activities that serve their partisan interests.

But even if both sides are selfish bastards, the Democrats' defense of initiative and referendum versus the Republicans' attack thereupon demonstrates a fundamental difference in what the two parties think about Us the People. Republicans don't trust us. They cautiously let us vote for elected officials (even there, they throw up roadblocks), but they don't trust us to exercise legislative power directly. They want us, the unwashed and passion-addled mob, to trust those decisions to the elites, the elected officials in whose ears the corporate lobbyists drip their honey. They want a Republic.

Democrats do trust us. They want as many people as possible to vote not just for leaders, but for policies. They believe we the masses really can read, write, and pass good legislation. They recognize the fundamental unfairness in allowing legislators an almost immediate veto over our will while requiring us to undertake the lengthy and arduous process of gathering signatures and campaigning in a general election to challenge legislative action or inaction. Democrats say, "Let the people vote, and let their will stand." Democrats want a democracy.

House Bill 1175 poses some interesting legal questions about how the Legislature would go about fixing problems in initiated laws or laws that withstand referendum. But House Bill 1175 is the only good idea pertaining to initiative referendum to emerge yet from the 2015 Legislature. Turn up the heat on your phones and e-mails, and tell your legislators this is the one I&R bill they should support.

14 comments

Funny the ideas that pop up when one blogs and teachers. In our blog discussion Tuesday of House Bill 1089, the proposed ban on female genital mutilation, I mentioned my college-days battle against multiculturalism. I walked into class today and found students reading a text on multiculturalism in literary theory. I mentioned my concerns about value  relativism to the students (how can we critique Western culture of multiculturalism encourages us to value and celebrate all cultures?). But then I read this passage that casts multiculturalism as a healthy democratic response to oppression:

As opposed to the hierarchies set up by European colonists, [Frantz] Fanon imagined the independent Algerian republic working on the principles of extreme decentralization, with contact and interchange between the leaders and the rank and file, and a clear understanding that the government would be at the service of the masses. In addition, he said, "Women will have exactly the same place as men, not only in the clauses of the constitution but in the life of every day: in the factory, at school, and in the parliament." The living expression of the nation would be found not in the leaders, the palaces, or rituals of politics, but in "the moving consciousness of the whole of the people: it is the coherent, enlightened action of men and women" [Stephen Bonnycastle, In Search of Authority, 2007, p. 231].

Decentralization, encouraging the rank and file to make their own decisions, expecting leaders to communicate with and respond to the people, supporting women's equality, legislating with a focus on helping more people express their will... almost the perfect opposite of what Republicans are doing to South Dakota.

And then it hits me: we are being colonized by our own legislators. Co-opted by corporate imperialists, our legislators are putting us in chains, disrespecting the popular will, and dehumanizing us to make easier their seizure of our wealth and pollution of our land and water.

We children of empire now fight the new corporate empire. We colonizers become the colonized. I may have to revisit my SDSU textbook on multiculturalism.

32 comments

At the beginning of this month, I responded with abhorrence to the murders of the Charlie Hebdo artists by jihadis and asked whether Islam has a fundamental tendency toward violence that Christianity does not.

In one of those wonderful moments of cosmic connection, I walk into class today and find AP students reading "Postcolonial Criticism and Multiculturalism," a chapter from Stephen Bonnycastle's literary theory text In Search of Authority. On page 230, Bonnycastle directs students' attention to Frantz Fanon's critique of Europe's history of oppression:

...Let us waste no time in sterile litanies and nauseating mimicry. Leave this Europe where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them, at the corner of every one of their own streets, in all the corners of the globe. For centuries they have stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience. Look at them today swaying between atomic and spiritual disintegration.

And yet it may be said that Europe has been successful in as much as everything that she has attempted has succeeded.

Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardour, cynicism and violence. Look at how the shadow of her palaces stretches out ever farther! Every one of her movements has burst the bounds of space and thought. Europe has declined all humility and all modesty; but she has also set her face against all solicitude and all tenderness.

She has only shown herself parsimonious and niggardly where men are concerned; it is only men that she has killed and devoured.

So, my brothers, how is it that we do not understand that we have better things to do than to follow that same Europe? [Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 1965, pp. 311–312].

I was aiming too low in comparing jihadis professing Islam to contemporary Christians who seem not produce proportionate holy warriors. I should have looked at the history of the great Western European Empire, at the pinnacle of which I comfortably Tweet, an empire built on the enslavement, exploitation, and extermination of millions from other cultures. Killing cartoonists, colonizing continents... what's the difference?

Update 16:47 CST: In related news, the Super Bowl is this weekend....

9 comments

What is it about conservative Christians and their inability to simply argue a point on its merits without resorting to hyperbolizing it into the most important thing ever?

In the South Dakota Legislature's continuing obsession with form over substance, Rep. Scott Craig (R-33/Rapid City) declares that a symbolic and hence impotent vote on House Concurrent Resolution 1004 is the most important thing any legislator will do this session:

Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, read from the final lines of the resolution that say the court erred and that ask the court to let states make the decisions on abortion.

“These are your words,” Craig told House members. “This is by far the most significant yes vote any one of us can cast this session” [Bob Mercer, "SD House Wants End to Legal Abortion," Rapid City Journal, 2015.01.29].

Rep. Craig apparently mistakes a stemwinding sermon for real statecraft. No vote on any resolution, even this ponderous 6750-word monster, will exceed in practical import any bill, no matter how small, that changes the law and the rules under which our democratic society functions. Yesterday's speeches and votes on HCR 1004 won't feed any kids, free any oppressed women, or, frankly, stop one abortion or unplanned pregnancy or instance of scandalous premarital sex.

I guess we have to keep reminding legislators of physics: Work is force applied over a distance. Rep. Craig and friends can exert their rhetorical force all day on their culture-war issues, but if they don't move practical results, they aren't getting any work done. Get to work, Legislature.

110 comments

House State Affairs gave short shrift to Rep. Steve Hickey's (R-9/Sioux Falls) House Bill 1086 Wednesday. Rep. Hickey wants the Legislature to spend the summer studying what it would do in case of a national economic collapse that would leave South Dakota without the federal aid on which it depends for nearly 40% of its budget. The committee listened for a few minutes, then killed the bill, 12–1. (Rep. Hickey's only ally: Rep. Scott Munsterman, R-7/Brookings, who may also believe a Long Economic Winter, if not The End, is nigh.)

Rep. Mike Verchio (R-30/Hill City) voted to kill HB 1086. In a Facebook conversation, Rep. Verchio tells the good Hickey that the Legislature has "much bigger issues to cover"...

...issues like those covered by the five bills Rep. Verchio is prime-sponsoring:

  1. HB 1112 to nudge up county power to restrict fireworks (how very Republican).
  2. HJR 1002 asking President Obama to pardon Peter L. Larson, dinosaur hunter.
  3. SB 79 to exempt all trailers from the county wheel tax... at a time when counties desperately need revenue to fix their roads.
  4. SB 107 to fiddle with the statutory language on drivers' learners permits. increase the period an instructor permit is valid and to revise the requirements to upgrade to an operator's licence or a restricted minor's permit.
  5. SB 152 in pork for his home district to fight an arguably unwinnable battle against pine beetles, who are simply nature's response to our mixed-up forest priorities.

Much bigger issues? Maybe. I'm curious, though: how does one determine what constitutes a greater priority for the Legislature? Are there principles one can apply... or do we just trot out that line about "much bigger issues" to dismiss conversations we find too complicated or unpleasant to have?

19 comments
Call Senator Brown now, and ask him why he fears democracy.

Call Senator Brown now, and ask him why he fears democracy.

Senator Corey Brown (R-23/Gettysburg) has perverted Senate Bill 69, the cornerstone of the petition reform package, into an effort to make it harder for Independents to get on the ballot. Not satisfied with that damage, Senator Brown now files Senate Bill 166, which continues the Republican war on the people's power of initiative and referendum.

Current statute (SDCL 2-1-5) uses the total number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election to determine how many signatures are necessary to place an initiated measure or referred law on the ballot. Per SDCL 2-1-1, initiated laws and referenda require signatures of 5% of those gubernatorial voters. Given the turnout of 277,403 voters in the 2014 gubernatorial election, petitions for initiatives and referenda in the next two cycles will require 13,871 signatures to make the ballot.

Because initiatives and referenda tend to go badly for his party, Republican Senator Brown wants to repeal SDCL 2-1-5 and replace the signature count not on the number of people who actually voted in the last gubernatorial election but on the number who could have voted. Assuming he means registered voters on November 3, 2014, that's 521,041. SB 166 would thus nearly double the number of signatures needed to get measures on the ballot, to 26,053.

And because he knows folks are already planning initiatives that he doesn't like, Senator Brown includes an emergency clause in SB 166 to make sure no one could file an initiative before July 1 under the current, less onerous signature requirement.

South Dakotans, Senator Brown does not trust you. He wants to take away your constitutionally guaranteed power to make your own laws. Don't let him do that. Write or call Senator Brown and ask him how Senate Bill 166 serves the public interest.

69 comments

Recent Comments

  • Deb Geelsdottir on "Legislature Casts Mo...": You're going to let me control your body Troy? Tha...
  • jerry on "Who Should Have Guns...": The legislators will probably need those pee shoot...
  • Roger Cornelius on "Legislature Casts Mo...": Seriously, can a fetus ask for 9 months, must be s...
  • Troy on "Legislature Casts Mo...": Deb, That is all every one of those babies are ...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "Legislature Casts Mo...": Here's a deal I'll keep with anyone who wants to c...
  • leslie on "South Dakota 1% Take...": what do NY, Conn, Nev and Fla have according to th...
  • leslie on "Sen. Brown Fears Dem...": larry, can i get that "fat" bumper sticker (C)?...
  • leslie on "Sen. Brown Fears Dem...": newland, you should write. that sheit about 605 o...
  • leslie on "Legislature Casts Mo...": put the fly swatter outside and dump it. there. ...
  • Roger Cornelius on "Legislature Casts Mo...": Alas, another female finally joins with Jenny to g...

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

Hot off the Press

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

Visit These Sponsors

Join Stan Adelstein's conversation about South Dakota's past and future
Conversation and Lunch with Democrats!

SD Mostly Political Blogroll

South Dakota Media

Madville Monthly

Meta