We have maps! The South Dakota Legislature's redistricting committee has produced two maps redrawing the boundaries of the legislative districts that will see us through the coming decade. Here's Option A from Representative Val Rausch and Senator Russell Olson:
Here's Option B from Representative Mitch Fargen:
And here's Option C from former legislator and redistricting fairness champion Bill Thompson:
Compare these proposals to the current Legislative map:
Fargen and Thompson are Democrats, so expect Option A to win the day. Take a close look and see who your new neighbors will be!
My current location in Spearfish sees no change, as Lawrence County remains a district unto itself. Back at my other ranch, District 8 becomes Lucky District 7 and a nice neat rectangle, pulling in Colman and the suburban regions of Flandreau. But Russ, Mitch, Patty, and their challengers will still have to make that long drive along Highway 34 to campaign from Woonsocket to the Minnesota border.
Any redistricting plan that gets Stace Nelson out of McCook County politics (option B?) works for me...
Yup! Fargen's plan would send Stace west to represent Sibby.
I'm intrigued by Thompson's Option C, which would make Lake County its own district with a nice little chunk of south-central Brookings County (Lake Campbell?)
@Bob Imagine that, heavy conservative district represented by a heavy Conservative. Seems others in this conservative state think I am voting in accordance with their views on issues: http://legis.state.sd.us/interim/2011/RelatedDocuments.aspx?KeywordID=239
@Cory Mr. Thompson's map appears to include provisions for single representative districts, which I like.
While A or B may be fine for me if staying in office was a driving concern, my concern is the growing size of rural districts. Folks in many SF districts can walk a couple blocks and have access to all three of their legislators, while rural South Dakotans need to drive hundreds of miles for the same contact?
The logic behind this map needs to be examined: http://legis.state.sd.us/interim/2011/documents/LRE-SF%20NineAdopted.pdf The Minnehaha portions of District 25 were absorbed because of the expressed logic of a SF conurbation district; however, that same logic that called for the inclusion of the geographic & population of the area North of Sioux Falls magically dissipates in an abrupt curious curtailed pattern South of Sioux Falls?
Huh, not sure why that link got messed up. This is the one http://freepdfhosting.com/89b2d1354f.pdf
@Stace, I know the makeup of my district. I just would rather it be someone...anyone...other than the chest pounding homophobe that we have now.
Oh and too bad about that DADT thing.
@Bob No homophobe here, keep the projecting to a minimum. No place for anyone's sexuality in the ranks, it is about service to COUNTRY. DADT applied to everyone. Again, it is about service to COUNTRY...
"No place for anyone's sexuality in the ranks, it is about service to country." That statement sounds supportive of the changed policy. Very progressive of you. "DADT applied to everyone." But can't agree with you there Stace. A straight person would not have disclosed they were gay, so it didn't apply to everyone. Unless you think that everyone in the military is a least a little bit gay. Is that what you're saying?
DADT applies to everyone in the military in the same way that integrating re color applied to everyone in the military. Both black and white, racists and non-racists were integrated.
DADT did not apply to everyone in the military. A straight soldier could tell everyone he was straight with no repercussions.
Cannot ever recall a moment where disussing my sexuality was appropriate with the men & women I served with. I am curious, under what circumstances did you find such a conversation appropriate or beneficial tothe mission John? Eve?
Is Stace Nelson telling us here that he never even once discussed sex with any fellow Marine the whole time he was in the military? ...or ever once behaved in such a way as to make his sexual preference known? I have this one eyebrow up, and I can't get it to go back down, Nick, how about you?
@Bill Good point. In thinking of the major hazards of such discussions with members of the opposite sex towards the middle and end of my tenure, I forgot that it was the exact opposite with the male gender early in my service. Early on before DADT, living with other male Marines in very close confinement, it was often a point that they made it VERY clear that they were straight. Last thing anyone wanted was to think the guy in the shower next to them, or the rack above them, or the tent next to them, had interests in those that they shared those close confines with.
I have already seen that folks have their preconceived ideas about what they think occurred under DADT, perception is realty to people. Homosexuals served often openly and the military criminal investigative organizations no longer investigated such activity. Because of DADT, no new bathrooms had to be built, no special considerations for berthing, etc. It is a nice theory to say everyone should be accommodated so they can serve, including the kids that are 200lbs overweight, too tall, too skinny, too short, blind, etc, etc., ; however, it is another thing to be able to do so without tackling the unique living conditions that forced them to have the standards & requirements that that life style demands.
In any event, the post was about redistricting and we do the public a disservice for diverting the attention away from these maps.
"Early on before DADT, living with other male Marines in very close confinement, it was often a point that they made it VERY clear that they were straight."
Hmm... you're right. We should probably get back to talking about the maps. Not sure I want to ask you to explain what you just wrote.
Maybe Schwartz will.
Bill, I can't remember once ever making it any kind of point to discuss one's sexuality while living in close quarters and they don't get much closer than a berthing compartment on an aircraft carrier. It never crossed my mind...
The only thing that I was concerned about was whether or not those around me had showered lately or had eaten the bean burritos served during midrats.
As a young Marine lieutenant I watched as a fellow lieutenant was drummed out of the Corps because he was gay. This was prior to DADT, back then they just conducted witch hunts, courts martial and issued other than honorable discharges. This lieutenant was a competent infantry officer commanding an infantry platoon in First Battalion Sixth Marines and later the battalion 81MM mortar platoon. Our government spent thousands training him and then spent thousands more kicking him out of the Corps. It was a huge waste of talent and man hours, and ruined the life of a good young man, a patriot who just wanted to serve his country.
Ending DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will take the focus off a service member's sexuality and put it back where it belongs, the mission.