I got this article from a creative young South Dakotan who has moved to the Twin Cities to capitalize on her creative skills. An economic analysis of "creative vitality" finds that Minneapolis ranks sixth nationwide for the amount of economic activity generated by the creative arts industry. According to the report commissioned by Minneapolis city government, artists and their ilk generate over $700 million in economic activity for Minneapolis, including $430 million in retail sales. That $430 million is 70% of what sports generates for Minneapolis.

The Colorado outfit that produces the Creative Vitality Index™ doesn't have comparable data for South Dakota. But who needs the arts when now we can have nicely state-regulated cage fighting at Sturgis?

Hmm... when my expatriate friend in Minneapolis said she is proud to be part of her new community, she wasn't talking about blood sports at the Target Center.

We have one more chance to stop House Bill 1087, the school gunslinger bill. The Senate amended HB 1087 three times (once in committee, twice on the floor) before passing it 21–14 yesterday. Rep. Rev. Scott Craig's original five-section bill has ballooned to eighteen. I don't take the length of a bill as an inherent sign of bad legislation, but legislators have been working awfully hard to beat Craig's original sloppy mess into passable legislation. They've quintupled the verbage (from 309 words to 1,541), and they still don't have an educationally sound idea.

Here are the changes the House must approve:

1. Senate State Affairs very sensibly got rid of the secrecy clause that would have required school boards to conduct every discussion but the initial authorization of a local school gunslinger program in executive session. The House Education committee added that clause to boost support in its chamber; the House may thus balk at that change.
2. Senator Larry Rhoden (R-29/Union Center) moved the Senate yesterday to add language making clear that school district residents can refer a school board's ill-advised decision to arm teachers, janitors, and other volunteers to a public vote. And you can bet your bullets that we parents will refer such a decision. I'm all for more democracy to protect us from the Legislature's bad decisions... but I'm not convinced this amendment is necessary. Voters can already refer any legislative decision of a school board, and enacting a school sentinel program would appear to be a legislative decision, not an administrative decision (though I'm open to debate on that topic).
3. At Senator Craig Tieszen's (R-34/Rapid City) motion, the Senate also added language absolving the state and local law enforcement from any liability for any injury that may result from school gunslinger program. Once again, Senator Tieszen shows he doesn't want to take any responsibility for anything that might go wrong with HB 1087.

The first two changes are reasonable. The third is irresponsible. Let's look at the opening language of Tieszen's amendment:

No law enforcement officer or county sheriff, nor the Law Enforcement Officers Standards Commission, Division of Criminal Investigation, Office of Attorney General, the State of South Dakota, nor any agents, employees, or members thereof is liable for any injury....

Agents thereof... hmm.... The school "sentinel" will be trained and certified by the same state agency that trains and certifies law enforcement officers to carry firearms. Does that make them agents of the state? Does that make them law enforcement officers? Does that mean that if a school "sentinel" causes injury while slinging his gun around my school, that "sentinel" faces no liability for that negligence? If I'm that bumbling sentinel's lawyer, I certainly argue so.

Good or bad, these changes send HB 1087 back to the House. That gives us one more chance to convince legislators to change their votes. We succeeded in changing Senator Bob Ewing's (R-31/Spearfish) mind on HB 1087 (yup, he stuck to his word and voted Nay yesterday). We can succeed in drawing seven Yeas from the House back to the side of evidence and good sense.

Call your Reps, remind them that no one in education has testified for HB 1087, no evidence supports HB 1087's effectiveness, and no significant threat exists that justifies putting out kids at more risk of physical and psychological harm.

Related Reading:

• A nationwide online survey of teachers finds that only 30% of teachers say they would be even somewhat likely to carry a gun in school if allowed.
• A local survey of teachers in Spearfish found 54% of us opposed to HB 1087. But even among those who said they could support the idea of more guns in our schools, a majority of the comments submitted with the survey said those teachers want the guns in the hands of law enforcement officers, not teachers, janitors, or other volunteers.
• Slate.com has been counting gun deaths since the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting. At least 2,332 people have been killed by guns in America in the 76 days since Newtown. Slate finds six shootings in South Dakota... none of which happened in our gun-free school zones.

The latest line of irresponsible deflection on House Bill 1087, the school gunslinger bill, comes from prime Senate sponsor Craig Tieszen (R-34/Rapid City), who offered this defense yesterday on the Senate floor:

“The sentinel bill will not put one single gun in any school in South Dakota,” said Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City and the former Rapid City police chief. “Only a local school board can make that decision” [David Montgomery, "Sentinels Bill Passes Senate, Close to Becoming Law," Political Smokeout, 2013.02.27].

Senator Craig Tieszen

This is the same hogwash we hear from legislators when they cut funding for K-12 education but claim low teacher salaries and cuts in staff and resources aren't their fault. "The local school boards make all those decisions," claim our (mostly Republican) legislators, who have a real problem taking responsibility for their bad choices.

HB 1087 opens the door to put more guns in our schools. If any school makes the bad decision to arm teachers, janitors, or other volunteers, it will be because Senator Tieszen and 20 of his NRA-approval-seeking colleagues voted for this bill.

If those new guns in schools cause a group of kindergartners to grow up a little more afraid, a little less able to learn, and a little less firm in their faith in civil society, Senator Tieszen will bear some of the blame. And if there's an accident with one of those guns (which is the only way that anyone has ever been killed by a firearm in a South Dakota school), Senator Tieszen will bear some of the blame.

Just as one of my readers notes his surprise that "We haven't heard more from Stacey this session," the Fulton Fulminator strikes again, this time with a curious coalition challenging last week's House approval of HB 1060, the lengthy revision of the FY 2013 General Appropriations Act. The Governor has salted HB 1060 with all sorts of goodies, like his five-million-dollar French cheese subsidy (no, really, I'm not making that phrase up).

Today, pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) filed a dissent and protest against the passage of HB 1060. Essentially, the protest says that the inclusion of the Governor's French cheese subsidy and funding for his big criminal justice reform initiative take end runs around the state constitution.

You can view a scan of the original document, with ten signatures, nine of which I can read. I transcribe the full text below (taking liberty to add hyperlinks and paragraph breaks):

DISSENT AND PROTEST PASSAGE OF HB 1060

Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Representatives, do hereby respectfully dissent and protest the passage of HB 1060. The Constitution of the State of South Dakota, Article XII, Section 2, states that the general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools. All other appropriations are to be made by separate bills and require a two-thirds majority to pass.

Several items in HB 1060 do not meet the constitutional criteria specified above for measures to be included in the general appropriations bill. Specifically, HB 1060 includes one-time unordinary appropriations for five million dollars on page 2, line 7 of the original printed bill to repay monies related to a statute rejected by the voters in 2012's Referred Law Number 14. The bill also includes one-time unordinary appropriations of approximately six million dollars to implement provisions of 2013's SB 70. HB 1060 was passed even after this information was provided to the body during official debate.

We therefore believe that the passage of 1060 is in contravention of the Constitution, is null and void, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, and thus weakens the rule of law. We respectfully request that this dissent be printed in the House Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.

Now for the curious coalition of signatories:

1. Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton)
2. Rep. Lance Russell (R-30/Hot Springs)
3. Rep. Dan Kaiser (R-3/Aberdeen)
4. Rep. Julie Bartling (D-21/Gregory)
5. Rep. Kevin Killer (D-27/Pine Ridge)
6. Rep. Bernie Hunhoff (D-18/Yankton)
7. Rep. Spencer Hawley (D-7/Brookings)
8. Rep. Betty Olson (R-28B/Prairie City)
9. Rep. Peggy Gibson (D-22/Huron)
10. Rep. Rev. Karen Soli (D-15/Sioux Falls)

That's 4 arch-conservative R's and 6 big D's, including 3 D's—Bartling, Gibson, and Hawley—who voted for HB 1060 on its pass through the House.

Now signing this protest may have little real cost or benefit. The House leadership allowed the protest to be printed in today's House journal, putting ten members on the record saying the House has acted unconstitutionally, and there that protest will sit, having no technical impact on HB 1060's continued movement through the chamber.

But it shows, in a small way, that Rep. Nelson is still willing to rattle the apple cart, and that, unlike some Republicans who consider one-party rule their South Dakota birthright, he is not just willing to talk to Democrats but able to get them rattle with him.

Related: As another eager commenter notes, Rep. Nelson bucked the GOP Tuesday in House Local Government and joined Democrats Soli and Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City) in trying to kill SB 155, the Big Ag road subsidy for new CAFOs, before the committee kicked the bill to House Appropriations.

As long as women across South Dakota are fighting Rep. Jon Hansen's mean-spirited misogynist patriarchy, I hesitate to suggest that I agree with that misguided Republican on anything.

But agree I do with Rep. Hansen on his decision to vote to kill Senate Bill 132 today in House Judiciary. Called a "Good Samaritan" bill, SB 132 sought to excuse minors from misdemeanor punishment for underage purchase, possession, or consumption of alcohol if they call the cops or EMTs to get medical help for themselves or other minors who've drunk too much. SB 132 cruised through the Senate but went down on a close 7–6 vote today.

University students from USD and SDSU lined up in favor of SB 132; law enforcement testified against. Rep. Hansen lined up with law enforcement and with me, albeit ineloquently:

If they go out and they get so drunk that they are lying on the floor and convulsing and choking on their own vomit that they'll be able to have their friend call the cops. I don't want to support that kind of behavior [Rep. Jon Hansen, quoted by Ben Dunsmoor, "Good Samaritan Bill Killed in Committee," KELOLand.com, 2013.02.27].

Perhaps the ineloquence is simply Dunsmoor's punctuation. But Hansen's principle stands, and I stand with it.

Let's put this "Good Samaritan" bill in the context of other lawbreaking. Suppose you decide to burn down your neighbors' house. You watch the neighbors' car pull out of the driveway. You sneak over with your gas can, light the place up, dance a brief pyromaniac jig of joy... but then notice through a window that the babysitter is there with the neighbors' kids. They've passed out from the smoke. You call 911, break down the door, haul the kids out. EMTs, firefighters, and cops come. They revive the kids, smell the gas on your hands, put two and two together, and...

...What? Give you a medal? No. You broke the law. You did damage. You created the situation that those kids needed saving from in the first place.

The situation with binge drinking parties is pretty similar. Teenagers and young adults choose to engage in activity that they know is illegal and dangerous. When the very predictable risk of that behavior manifests itself as physical harm, the supporters of SB 132 want us to excuse those kids from the legal consequences of their choices.

I can't go there. I want the law to tell young people what I plan to tell my daughter in my best Joe Flaherty voice: Drinking under age 21 is illegal. Binge drinking is dangerous. Don't even get into a situation where you may have to go to jail to save a friend's life or your own life.

I'm probably just another imperial colonialist. But...

One of my legally-minded commenters worries that reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, as passed by the U.S. Senate and now headed to the House for consideration tomorrow, would undermine our ability to prosecute non-Indians committing sexual crimes against Indian women. U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson does not share that concern:

"I think a big part of the argument on behalf of tribal jurisdiction is that local control over criminal justice matters is always preferable," Johnson said. "When victims and witnesses have to travel a significant distance to appear in federal court, you are going to lose some cases" [Kevin Woster, "Brendan Johnson Looks at Tribal Courts, Reauthorizing Violence Against Women Act," Mount Blogmore, 2013.02.26].

Author Louise Erdrich explains further why Kristi Noem needs to get off her high-horse and vote for the Senate VAWA:

The Justice Department reports that one in three Native women is raped over her lifetime, while other sources report that many Native women are too demoralized to report rape.  Perhaps this is because federal prosecutors decline to prosecute 67 percent of sexual abuse cases, according to the Government Accountability Office. Further tearing at the social fabric of communities, a Native woman battered by her non-Native husband has no recourse for justice in tribal courts, even if both live on reservation ground. More than 80 percent of sex crimes on reservations are committed by non-Indian men, who are immune from prosecution by tribal courts.

The Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center says this gap in the law has attracted non-Indian habitual sexual predators to tribal areas. Alexandra Pierce, author of a 2009 report on sexual violence against Indian women in Minnesota, has found that there rapes on upstate reservations increase during hunting season. A non-Indian can drive up from the cities and be home in five hours. The tribal police can’t arrest him [Louise Erdrich, "Rape on the Reservation," New York Times, 2013.02.26].

Erdrich notes that voting for VAWA would help Rep. Noem and her fellow Republicans win back some of their dwindling credibility. But that's window dressing to the real reason to support VAWA: doing right by the Indian women suffering at the hands of white predators.

Hat tip to Larry Kurtz!

American Indians have problems with poverty, unemployment, and other social ills. (Violent conquest can do that to a people.) But something in South Dakota makes our Indians poorer than Indians elsewhere in America. What gives? And what will solve?

Rep. Kristi Noem and various ax-grinders and libertarians believe that government can't solve problems in Indian Country. One man in Indian Country doesn't think churches or other non-profits do much good, either:

Pine Ridge reservation is drowning in saviors, drowning in missionaries and non-profit organizations. The reservation has hosted supposed saviors for most of its history. Yet going back to the beginning, few of these Christian groups or non-profits have been out for anything but themselves. Most have allied with the forces of colonialism rather than allied with the Lakota people.  These groups have served as functionaries of mental and spiritual genocide while the US government carried out the physical extinguishing.  Even when trying to help, these people too often haven’t questioned toxic assumptions about Native people, and wind up poisoning rather than helping [Tom, "The Failure of Christian Groups and Non-Profits on Pine Ridge Reservation," Notes from the mad Abstract Dark, 2012.02.21].

Moving from the abstract to the concrete, this blogger contends the money we white folks spend to send our kids on "mission trips" could be better invested in local skilled labor:

...RE-member charges $375 dollars a person for trips like these. For a 17 person crew like the one mentioned in the article that’s $6375. I also wonder, just how effective can 17 high schoolers be at attending to any needs of the reservation? I don’t mean to put down the high schoolers, or their desire to help someone. However, high school by definition is typically before someone has become advanced in any particular skill. Why pay so much to have unskilled high schoolers come all this way, when maybe that money could go toward hiring tribal members, already skilled in carpentry, building houses, waterworks, developing infrastructure? Perhaps its assumed we have no such people. The article seems to assume so. Yet there are people here skilled in every vocation, who are already connected to this community.  If a group really wanted to help, perhaps they would empower and enable these local people, rather than parade outsiders about the land.  At some point it starts to look like tourism, rather than whatever else it is supposed to be ["Failure...," 2013.02.21].

But even that cost-benefit analysis assumes those outside groups should keep sending resources to the reservation. Is the solution really a withdrawal of every fork-tongued white man from Indian Country, plus wholly indigenous self-improvement programs funded by billion-dollar reparations scheduled to sunset in 2076 (the bicentennial of victory at Little Big Horn)?

If Tom is right, and if nothing in the status quo has worked, I suppose trying something completely different couldn't make things much worse.

Related: Today is the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Wounded Knee occupation.

Brenda Wade Schmidt answers Pat Powers's question about Clarity Polling's recent calls around the state. It appears they have a client interested in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign:

The first question was whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Daugaard, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Mike Huether and Scott Heidepriem. From there, the survey asked various questions in which I was asked how I would vote if Daugaard ran against each of the Democrats. Press one for Daugaard, two for the other candidate, the automated poll directed.

The poll was clearly only about the governor’s race but did include questions about abortion, taxes, gun control and gay marriage. It also asked how often I attended church, whether I had cable TV and if there were any guns in my house [Brenda Wade Schmidt, "Press One for Dennis Daugaard, Two for the Democrat," Got Opinions? 2013.02.26].

From Wade Schmidt's description, the poll doesn't appear to have done head-to-head on the possible Dems. But when Clarity processes the data, here's how they'll find a primary would break:

1. Herseth Sandlin: 75%
2. Huether: 15%
3. Heidepriem: 10%

Mike Huether

Scott Heidepriem

I give Huether an edge over Heidepriem based on Heidepriem's inability to break the low glass ceiling for Dems in 2010 and lack of any evidence that he's building a better hammer for 2014. Given a choice between those two men, a slight majority of Dems would lean toward trying something different... although some of us will get excited about rained-on Alpo before we vote to put a former Premier BankCard usury exec in charge of our state.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

But that choice is academic if SHS enters the ring. She has a combination of experience, connections, fundraising potential, likability, and star power that outpace the other two H's and give Dems the most feasible shot at unseating Dennis Daugaard in 2014.