Tag: politics

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Religious Freedom in the Corporate World

By Ken Blanchard

It is a charming coincidence that Hobby Lobby is coming to Aberdeen just as the firm is enjoying its moment of national fame. Or infamy, perhaps — the kind that inspires folks who never shopped there before to announce that they are never shopping there again.

The Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. generated enough heat on the left to keep the Dakotas warm all winter. I will try to provide a little light. The Court did not say, as many critics say that they said, that corporations are people. It recognized that corporations are legal persons, meaning simply that they have rights and duties under the law. This has been part of law for the last 500 years.

I have written about that once before, but I will add one point here. As Justice Alito noted, corporate personhood is a legal fiction. It is useful to treat a corporation as a single person when you want to tax and regulate it, sue it, or, if it is the New York Times, grant it the freedom of the press. However, corporations are composed of and act solely through people. When you tell a closely held corporation that it has to do something, you are making a small group of natural persons (five or less) do something. Even if corporations don’t have rights, David and Barbara Green surely do.

Almost all the critics of the decision seem to think that it is the job of the nine justices to decide who they like more and what they would like to see happen. It is not. It is the job of the Court to say what the law is. In this case, the law is The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA (say it like it’s a word and you’ll sound like Scooby Doo) was a response to another controversial decision of the High Court.

The Constitution has two clauses dealing with religion: the Establishment Clause, which means that government cannot compel someone to conform to or profess any religion and the Free Exercise Clause, which means that government cannot prevent someone from practicing or professing a religion. There are two ways to interpret the latter. One way is the Sherbert Test, announced by the Court in 1962. According to that test, when an act of government imposes a significant burden on someone’s exercise of sincerely held religious faith, that government must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in doing so and that there is no less restrictive way to serve that interest.

The trouble with that test is that it depends on a lot of vague modifiers. What is a significant burden? Which beliefs are sincere? What government interests are compelling? In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) the Court adopted a simpler and, in my view, better test. A law violates the Free Exercise Clause only if it is designed to target a religious belief or practice. So long as a law applies to everyone the same way, regardless of their beliefs, then it constitutional even if it happens to interfere with some religious practice. So a law that said that only Native Americans are forbidden to use peyote and only for ceremonial purposes would be unconstitutional; however, a law that says no one can use peyote for any reason is constitutional, even if inconvenient for traditional practices.

If the Smith test were all that the Court had to go on, Hobby Lobby would have had no case. The ACA contraceptive mandate applies the same way to corporations generally, regardless of religious motivations. It is up to the Administration to decide on exemptions. However, the Smith decision offended both the left and the right (which may have been proof enough that it was correct). Congress passed RFRA almost unanimously when Democrats still controlled both houses, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. So if you were offended by Hobby Lobby’s victory, now you know whom to blame.

I am not convinced that RFRA is constitutional. While persons of any religious faith deserve to be protected from hostile legislation, I don’t think that religious faith should give someone special immunities to otherwise valid laws that are not enjoyed by atheists. Until the Court comes around to my way of thinking, RFRA is the law and it looks to me like the Court has read it correctly.

Critics of the decision have flooded the media and the net with horrifying questions. Does this mean that corporations can stop paying taxes if they have religious objections? Does it mean that a human sacrifice cult can now begin cutting throats? This parade of horrors is absurd because we know very well how the principle of law works. It was operative from the early 1960s to the’90s as a matter of constitutional law. It has been operative on Congress at least since 1993. The courts have routinely balanced the interests of government and religious objections in mostly sensible ways.

In Burwell the Court ruled that the government could easily have found other means to achieve its objective or providing contraceptive care under the ACA. Indeed the Administration has found other means in the case of churches, which are also private corporations. In those cases, the burden falls on the insurance agencies. Alternatively, the contraceptive technologies in question could be directly subsidized. The Administration could have avoided the case by extending to Hobby Lobby the same exemptions it extended to churches. That they did not do so might be because they wanted to show everyone who is boss. Well, now we know. Turns out it’s the law.

Editor’s Note: Ken Blanchard is our political columnist from the right. For a left-wing perspective on politics, please look for columns by Cory Heidelberger every other Wednesday on this site.

Dr. Ken Blanchard is a professor of Political Science at Northern State University and writes for the Aberdeen American News and the blog South Dakota Politics.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Jonesing For Indies

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

The non-race for attorney general shows why South Dakota should reform its nomination process to make it easier for Independents to run for office.

At its convention in Rapid City on June 21, the South Dakota Republican Party nominated Attorney General Marty Jackley to run for a second term. The following weekend, much to my chagrin, the South Dakota Democratic Party failed to nominate a challenger, leaving Jackley unopposed.

Jackley may yet face a challenger on the ballot: Republican Chad Haber, husband of former U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth, announced Tuesday, July 8, that he wants to buck his party and run for attorney general. Among Haber’s many problems is the near impossibility of getting on the ballot. Three party conventions are done. The Libertarians only have until Friday to schedule a date to legally nominate anyone. And Independents had to file by April 29.

The last thing I want is Chad Haber as attorney general. But I do want Independents to have fairer access to the ballot. Consider the disadvantages that state law, written by Republicans and Democrats, unfairly imposes on non-party people:

  • This year, Independents running for House, Senate, or Governor had to collect 3,171 signatures. Republicans running for those offices only needed 1,955 signatures; Democrats, 1,221.
  • Party candidates for attorney general, secretary of state, and other second-tier statewide offices don’t need any signatures; they just need to show up at their convention, give out buffalo wings and ice cream, and win the convention vote. With no party to convene and nominate them, Independents aspiring to become attorney general or secretary of state must gather the same 3,171 signatures as Senate candidates.
  • Independents get a slight advantage in races for Senate, House, Governor and Legislature: an extra month to gather signatures. But Indies for attorney general, secretary of state, public utilities commissioner, etc., have no such luck. Parties nominate their choices for those offices at the summer conventions, two or three months after the Indy filing deadline. This year, a prudent Indy who wanted to challenge Jackley but didn’t want to stand in the way of a qualified Democratic candidate couldn’t wait for the Democratic convention to see if anyone good entered the race.

We can fix these disadvantages with a few statutory changes:

  • Establish a uniform filing deadline for all Independent candidates for statewide and legislative offices: the last Tuesday in July.
  • Require political parties to submit their convention nominees by the last Tuesday in June.
  • Reduce the Independent nominating signature requirement to the either the lower or the average of the major party signature requirements.
  • For offices like attorney general, for which partisan candidates are nominated by convention rather than petition, set the Independent nominating signature requirement equal to the number of voting delegates attending the largest party convention in the state.

Independents accept the disadvantage of running for office without an ongoing party apparatus. They should not face additional unfair disadvantages imposed on them by partisan lawmakers. We can’t fix the system in time to give Jackley the challenge he deserves, but we can open up the ballot and allow Independents easier access in future elections.

Editor’s Note: Cory Heidelberger is our political columnist from the left. For a conservative perspective on politics, please look for columns by Dr. Ken Blanchard on this site.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and has taught math, English, speech, and French at high schools East and West River.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

First Lady of Territory Deserves Better

By Katie Hunhoff

Amanda Kate Pennington left the two small graves of her children Willie and Kate in Alabama when she came to Yankton, Dakota Territory in 1874 with her husband, John, who was named Territorial Governor by President Ulysses S. Grant. They had three other children, however, and so she adjusted to life as an active and enthusiastic Dakotan.

But the Penningtons suffered anew when Amanda grew ill and died in 1884 at her home, an Italianate-style brick home at Third and Pearl in downtown Yankton. Since 1987, the Pennington House has been the headquarters for South Dakota Magazine.

John Pennington was a Southern newspaperman during the Civil War. He gained General Ulysses S. Grant’s trust and attention by editorializing that the South was paying too great a price and should consider surrender. When Grant became president, he awarded Pennington the governorship of Dakota Territory.

Pennington survived as governor for four years (1874-1878), double the tenure of most territorial leaders. He was sympathetic to the concerns of farmers and Native Americans and considered a capable fellow, but he became identified with the infamous”Yankton Ring” that mastered the spoils system. For example, when Pennington County was created in 1875, the governor named Yanktonians to serve as county officers. His friends collected salaries without moving west to perform their duties.

After leaving office, Pennington remained in Yankton. He published a weekly newspaper and built a substantial commercial building downtown. He became a full-fledged South Dakotan after serving as territorial governor.

Sioux Falls historian Gary Conradi recently completed a search for all of our governors’ graves. He assumed that Mrs. Pennington was buried in Alabama, but when he found six Pennington grave lots in the Yankton Cemetery, he searched the Yankton Press and Dakotan archives for her obituary. It noted that she was indeed buried in the Yankton Cemetery, though the family intended to move the grave home to Alabama so she could rest alongside her deceased children. But it was not easy to move a loved one’s remains in the 1880s, and it never happened. Eventually her husband and three surviving children, Lulu, Mary and John Jr., left without her. Of the six Pennington plots in the Yankton Cemetery, only one was ever used. Amanda rests there alone today, without a stone or any recognition.

In this 125th birthday year for South Dakota, a group of Yanktonians and state historians intend to right an old wrong by placing a headstone on Amanda’s grave befitting a first lady of the territory. It will include the names of her five beloved children. A memorial service will be held at the grave on Sept. 10 with Episcopalian Bishop John Tarrant presiding.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Primary Lessons

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

South Dakota Democrats had the least to vote on in last week’s primary, but they had the most interesting race. Most folks knew that incumbent Gov. Dennis Daugaard and Nine-Million-Dollar Man Mike Rounds would have a relatively easy time securing the Republican nominations for Governor and U.S. Senator, respectively. But in the Democratic tussle for the gubernatorial nomination, it was anyone’s guess who would win, Rep. Susan Wismer from Britton or Joe Lowe from Piedmont. Would Wismer’s direct mail trump Lowe’s TV and newspaper ads? Would Wismer be able to make up for campaign time she lost due to her job preparing taxes for her Britton neighbors? Would Wismer’s accountantly reserve withstand Lowe’s direct, personable and passionate style?

Wismer appears to have stamped a yes on all three questions with her 11-point victory over Lowe last Tuesday. Then again, all three of those points may have given Lowe genuine advantages; they may simply not have been enough to overcome Wismer’s biggest advantage: her status as a Democratic Party veteran, able to activate a built-in network of donors, volunteers and influential get-out-the-vote callers.

Lowe voters (I know whereof I speak; I am one!) had a sense that Lowe represented more of a break from the status quo, both from a South Dakota Democratic Party whose caution hasn’t posted many wins in the last two elections and from a Republican regime that Lowe says has bred a”culture of corruption.” Our Lowe-as-change-agent has two strong ironies. If we are concerned about a one-party good-old-boys’ club, no one disrupts that paradigm more iconically than only the second woman ever nominated for South Dakota governor. (The first: Alice Daly, Nonpartisan League, 1922.) And Lowe himself worked for three of the Republican administrations as state fire chief. Some would say he benefited from the corrupt regime he would now overturn; Lowe would say he simply had a front-row seat to witness that corruption every day during over a decade of honorable service to South Dakota. And hey — Democrats nominated a former Republican state senator for governor and a guy who was registered Republican until the week of the convention for his lieutenant in 2010, so who are we Dems to hold a guy’s past Republican associations against him?

If Lowe did represent change, his 11-point primary loss reminds us that Democrats must work hard to upset the established order in their own party. And even if we can unite behind Wismer as our change agent, the broader primary results remind us that changing South Dakota will be even harder. 12,283 Democrats and Independents came out to vote for Lowe in a competitive race. 15,311 voted for Wismer. 60,017 Republicans voted for Dennis Daugaard in an in-the-bag primary. Put Lowe and Wismer together (Wowe! I mean, Whoa!), and last Tuesday, Daugaard still would have beaten them. Twice. (Maybe I mean Woe!)

Electing a Democrat of any flavor, Wismer or Lowe, to the governor’s office would represent a major change. But electing a Democrat statewide in South Dakota will require an enthusiasm for change that is found in neither the Democratic or Republican primary results.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and has taught math, English, speech, and French at high schools East and West River.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Man Who Wasn’t There

By Ken Blanchard

Someday someone will write the definitive history of the Obama Administration. It won’t be yours truly, but I have surely got the right title: The Man Who Wasn’t There. It’s catchy and resonates with the famous poem and with a movie starring Billy Bob Thornton. Best of all, it pretty much tells the whole story.

One place the President wasn’t, much of the time, was the President’s Daily Brief. The PDB is where the President is supposed to be briefed on serious threats to national security. George W. Bush rarely missed one. Marc Thiessen reported in 2012 that Obama shows for less than half of his PDBs. His attendance fell even more as the election neared. In the week before terrorists in Benghazi murdered our ambassador, Obama didn’t show for a single one. He skipped another meeting the day after the attack to meet with grieving members of the State Department. He had no time to reschedule, since he had to fly off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

Might things have turned out differently if the President had been properly briefed before the attack? There is no way to be certain, but the British pulled their own ambassador well before the violence in Benghazi. Did the Brits know something we didn’t, or was it just that they were paying attention? We do know that there were warnings of violence for months and that the ambassador himself requested more security. We have been told that Obama didn’t know about these requests. I believe it.

We have been told that those responsible for the ambassador’s murder will be brought to justice, but if any progress has been made on this front, the Administration is keeping it secret. Days after the attack, CNN reporters entered the compound and found Ambassador Stevens’ diary on the floor. Apparently no official investigators had arrived. Are they there yet?

What happened in Benghazi is apparently standard procedure for this Administration. The President launched a series of air strikes against the Libyan regime while he was on a”relationship-building trip” to Brazil. What exactly is that? Here’s a hint: it didn’t involve anything as dreary as treaties, agreements or negotiations. It was all about Latin America and Barack Obama loving one another. It may be first war ever started while the President was on spring break.

He nearly launched a second one for not paying attention when he himself was talking. When you and your subordinates frequently say that the leader of the Syrian regime must go and when you draw red lines about chemical weapons, you may discover that you have accidently actually said something. That, in turn, might obligate you to act. When the President did show up to a meeting, he let the heads in the room talk but didn’t seem to be doing much listening. According to the New York Times,”He often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.” So we almost ended up siding the Syrian rebel movement just as Al Qaeda was capturing that movement, because the President was playing Angry Birds.

Things haven’t gotten any better. A year ago the President announced a new counter terrorism strategy to replace the post 9/11 policies initiated by George W. Bush. But according to the Washington Post,”Much of the agenda he outlined remains unfinished or not even begun.” The President said he was looking forward to engaging Congress on the issue, but even congressional Democrats admit that there has been little follow-through from the Administration.

No one should be the least bit surprised, then, that this Administration could successfully spring an American soldier from the clutches of the Taliban and do it in such a way as to leave everyone wondering whether the folks in the White House can be trusted to tie their own shoes. Allow me to stipulate that, whatever Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl may or may not be guilty of, bringing him home to be judged here instead of by the Taliban is a worthy objective. Critics of the exchange are right to point out that we say we don’t negotiate with terrorists and nothing demonstrates our resolve on that point like negotiating with terrorists. It also reminds our enemies that we care a lot more about individual human lives than they do and reminds everyone that this is a weakness on our part. We are what we are, however, and the Israelis, who are a lot tougher minded than we are, make the same kind of exchanges.

So perhaps the President couldn’t help paying such a sordid price for Bergdahl’s release, but he didn’t have to announce it in the Rose Garden. He didn’t have to say that it’s a”pretty sacred” rule that we never leave anyone behind when, if the worst about Bergdahl is true, we used to bring such fellows home and shoot them. The President’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, didn’t have to say that Bergdahl”served with honor and distinction,” though telling lies on Sunday morning news shows seems to be her special talent.

It now seems pretty clear that Sgt. Bergdahl lost his faith in his mission in Afghanistan and expressed that loss of faith by walking away from his fellow soldiers and towards the enemy. Whether he is responsible for the deaths of some of our soldiers or not, he certainly cost our military the time and resources they spent looking for him. It also cost us five captured cutthroats that the Pentagon clearly did not want to see released. Even if this gaggle of foes is no longer useful on the battlefield, Obama has now turned them into Taliban superstars. This is the kind of thing you try to do in the dead of night, not in the Rose Garden. This has to leave a lot of men and women under Obama’s command wondering if their Commander-in-Chief is a tuna fish sandwich.

Then there is this little matter of the law and the Constitution. Releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice violates the law. Does the law not matter to our President or did no one bother to check? Even if he decided he had to act swiftly because Bergdahl was in peril, he could at least have informed the leaders of both houses of Congress. He didn’t, perhaps because he doesn’t trust the Republican leader of the House. This one time teacher of Constitutional Law might have reflected he is not an autocrat and that war powers are shared with Congress. That, however, would have required reflection.

Editor’s Note: Ken Blanchard is our political columnist from the right. For a left-wing perspective on politics, please look for columns by Cory Heidelberger every other Wednesday on this site.

Dr. Ken Blanchard is a professor of Political Science at Northern State University and writes for the Aberdeen American News and the blog South Dakota Politics.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

What is a Kneip?

By John Andrews

Today South Dakotans vote in primary elections for governor and U.S. Senate. Susan Wismer, of Britton, and Joe Lowe, of Rapid City, are seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. In November, one of them will try to become the first Democratic governor of South Dakota since Richard Kneip served from 1971 to 1978.

When I was studying South Dakota history at the University of South Dakota, I wrote my master’s thesis on Kneip and state politics during the 1970s. That decade under Kneip’s leadership was one of the most important in state history. Gov. Kneip oversaw the complete reorganization of the executive branch, helped create the state’s four-year medical school in Vermillion and dealt with controversies and tragedies such as Wounded Knee, the Rapid City flood and the Oahe Irrigation Project.

Being elected governor is no easy task for Democrats in South Dakota. Since 1889 only three Democrats had served (four if you count Andrew Lee, who won in 1896 as a Fusion candidate, which blended Democrats and Populists) when Kneip announced his plans to run in 1970. Even then, few people might have suspected Kneip, a wholesale dairy equipment dealer from Salem, was cut out to be governor.

He had no political experience at all before 1965, when he won a term in the state senate serving McCook, Hanson and Sanborn counties. His entry into that race came partly because friends told him a Democrat could never get elected in that district. Inspired by John F. Kennedy’s success, Kneip, a fellow Catholic, announced his candidacy and won.

In 1970 Kneip challenged incumbent Gov. Frank Farrar and threw himself completely into the campaign. Because so few people outside his district were familiar with Kneip, his staff created a clever ad campaign that asked,”What is a Kneip?” The answer, of course, was,”the Democratic candidate for governor.” He traveled the state at a breakneck pace, visiting as many Main Street businesses as he could.”I barely have time to smoke a cigarette anymore,” he said two weeks before the election.”I’ve lost 20 pounds since the campaign started.”

Kneip defeated Farrar 55 percent to 45 percent, and began a fairly progressive decade of South Dakota politics. He whittled the state’s executive branch from over 160 departments and boards to 16. He helped transform the University of South Dakota’s two-year medical school into a full, degree-granting four-year institution. In the meantime, kept up with South Dakotans across the state. Ted Muenster, Kneip’s chief of staff, said that sometimes farmers called the governor’s office with questions about a piece of dairy equipment Kneip had sold them, and the governor would talk to them about it.

He also had a fun-loving side. One of Kneip’s more interesting exploits came in 1977 when he participated in Saturday Night Live‘s”Anyone Can Host” contest. The show sought brief statements from people explaining why they should host. The governor’s staff drafted a submission that said,”Being host could be my big breakthrough in show biz. Otherwise, it’s probably back to selling automatic milking machines (wholesale) like before I was Governor.”

The show’s producers got a kick out of it, and in November Kneip was one of five people who appeared on the show. Viewers were invited to vote for their favorite potential host. Kneip liked to say he had never lost an election, but 80-year-old Miskel Spillman from New Orleans prevailed.

Kneip resigned in 1978 when President Jimmy Carter named him the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore. He attempted a brief comeback in 1986, but lost in the Democratic primary. He died in March 1987.

Republicans have won every gubernatorial election since Kneip’s resignation. Can Susan Wismer or Joe Lowe break the streak? Only time will tell.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Leadership South Dakota

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

Back in March, I noticed a new program called Leadership South Dakota. The program is designed “to attract engaged citizens from across the state, then provide them with the background, unique experiences and insights necessary to assume leadership positions at the community, state and national levels.”

That language said to me, “Aha! Establishment reinforcing the establishment!” So did the roster of organizers and sponsors. Staffing Leadership South Dakota are education establishment pals Rick Melmer and Tom Oster. Sponsoring the program are the usual characters: Sanford Health, First Premier Bank, Daktronics, Lawrence & Schiller and the Ramkota. With such an assemblage of South Dakota’s conservative corporate cronies, how could Leadership South Dakota be anything but one more way to indoctrinate the next generation of South Dakota aspirers into the good-old-boys’ club?

Then good old boy Rick Melmer himself gave me a shout. He said he’s been asked if Leadership South Dakota is just a pro-Republican training camp. He says no way.

To dispel such concerns, Melmer points to three of his key assistants: Jim Beddow, Joe Bartmann and Mike Knutson. Beddow ran Dakota Wesleyan University and ran against Bill Janklow 20 years ago. He, Bartmann and Knutson have worked on other non-partisan community development projects like the Rural Learning Center and Home Address. Beddow’s team will coordinate the student research component of the program and help evaluate the entire program to guide its direction for future classes.

Oh, and that Tom Oster guy? He’s actually a Democrat. His grandpa Henry J. Oster served as a Democratic legislator from Davison County for 20 years. Tom Oster served on the County Commission in Democratic hotbed Brown County between 1986 and 1992.

Oster tells me the goal of Leadership South Dakota is not to build better Republicans or Democrats but better leaders. Oster says that, given how hard it is to get people to run for office, he’d be happy if Leadership South Dakota produced a larger crop of candidates for school boards, city councils and state legislature. But filling ballot slots is not the program’s primary purpose. Oster hopes Leadership South Dakota builds a network of leaders in many fields, from many backgrounds, who develop a broader, shared understanding of South Dakota as one big community and who can use their new knowledge and connections to do good things for South Dakota.

To further demonstrate the program is not for Republicans only, Melmer encouraged me to apply for Leadership South Dakota. Frankly, I think participating in the program would be a hoot. Check the schedule: students spend eight months hopping around the state studying agriculture, tourism, state government, American Indian issues and more. They get to converse with South Dakota’s business and government leaders (though notice, not a lot of environmentalists, human rights activists, or other community organizers who might offer lessons in leadership from someplace other than the Chamber of Commerce banquet table — Rick! Tom! Fix that!).

Alas, Leadership South Dakota costs $3,000, plus travel expenses. The first $3,000 in my pocket is spoken for (as is the next $3,000, and the next…). But Melmer tells me the South Dakota Community Foundation has some cash to subsidize tuition. And they’ll give that help based on need, not party affiliation.

Melmer says Leadership South Dakota still has some spots available. Apps are due this Friday, May 30, but the form is brief, just three pages, no long essays.

Done right, Leadership South Dakota promises a platform for useful conversations. Conscientious students dedicated to a better South Dakota can help ensure it’s done right. If you’re interested, give Melmer and Oster a shout.

Editor’s Note: Cory Heidelberger is our political columnist from the left. For a conservative perspective on politics, please look for columns by Dr. Ken Blanchard on this site.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and has taught math, English, speech, and French at high schools East and West River.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Health Care Politics in South Dakota

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

A new poll finds that health care is the most important deciding issue for South Dakotans trying to pick their next Senator. Republicans think that means crying wolf about the Affordable Care Act.

Mike Rounds is cluttering up everyone’s evening news with his mendacious ad claiming the Affordable Care Act makes him lose sleep. Rounds flat out lies, telling folks that the ACA is cutting Medicare and reducing benefits for seniors like his dear old dad, who, given his long-time service as a lobbyist for the oil industry and the fact that his son is the richest Republican in the U.S. Senate race, is probably one of the last people in South Dakota who needs to worry about paying his medical bills. For the record, the ACA hasn’t reduced care for Don Rounds or any other senior citizen; the cuts Rounds says he opposes are replicated by the Republican Paul Ryan budget.

Rounds, like everyone else on the Republican ticket, vows to repeal the ACA. Rounds et al. consistently call the ACA”ObamaCare,” which shows that for them, repealing the ACA is more about burning that man in the White House in effigy than about crafting good policy.

Call it what you will, the ACA is working. 17.3 to 27.7 million Americans have some sort of coverage thanks to provisions of the ACA. And consider this comparison of what happens when you implement the ACA with what happens when you don’t: In states that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA, hospitals are seeing a lower percentage of uninsured patients. In states like South Dakota that have rejected the ACA-Medicaid expansion, hospitals are seeing a higher percentage of uninsured patients. More uninsured patients mean more uncompensated care and more of what former Republican State Senator Stan Adelstein calls a hidden tax on the rest of us. In other words, everything else being equal, things are better with the ACA than without.

And Mike Rounds says, “Do without.” As former SDGOP boss Joel Rosenthal writes, Rounds and his false-fear-mongering GOP compadres aren’t offering any real policy alternatives to the ACA. Independent Larry Pressler is talking about lowering costs through health cooperatives. Democrat Rick Weiland is talking about making Medicare (which everyone loves, including Rounds) a public option, available to anyone who wants to buy in. Both Pressler and Weiland acknowledge that the ACA is imperfect. They respond not by making Barack Obama a bogeyman but by talking about ways to solve problems and make health care work better.

That same poll showing South Dakotans’ strong concern about health care also shows Rounds winning 44 percent of the vote, Weiland 30 percent, and Pressler 17 percent. That’s a pretty even split between fear mongering and problem-solving. Unfortunately, the two problem-solvers are splitting the practical vote, allowing fear and fecklessness to win the day. Pressler and Weiland will both need to work on pulling voters out of Camp Fear and into Camp Fix-It. Folks hoping for more progress on health care policy should wish Weiland and Pressler well.

Editor’s Note: Cory Heidelberger is our political columnist from the left. For a conservative perspective on politics, please look for columns by Dr. Ken Blanchard on this site.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and has taught math, English, speech, and French at high schools East and West River.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Judge

By Bernie Hunhoff

Editor’s Note: Sigurd Anderson’s rise from a young Norwegian immigrant who couldn’t speak English to governor of South Dakota is inspirational. We interviewed Anderson at home in Webster in 1988, two years before he passed away.

Whenever the Anderson family went to Canton for supplies, young Sig had two favorite haunts: the corner drug store, where he read everything but prescription labels, and the Lincoln County courthouse, where he sat enchanted by verbal battles between country lawyers.

That love of the English language might seem surprising, since he was born in Norway in 1904 and came to South Dakota at the age of 3 with his parents. He couldn’t speak a word of English when he started country school. Even though there were many other Norwegians in the area, it seemed that he and brother George were singled out for teasing because they dressed differently. And even though they quickly learned English, the words came out with a distinctive Scandinavian brogue.

“One song I listened to a lot,” he laughs today, was, “Oh, the Norwegians and the Dutch, They Don’t Amount to Much.”

Little did the other kids know that their quiet, immigrant classmate would become South Dakota’s 19th governor.

Despite some teasing, and an occasional walk home across the cornfield to avoid confrontations, the Anderson boys adjusted. Their father, Karl, loved life in America and took his children to local political debates, where Sig received more exposure to fine oratory. He still remembers a Non-Partisan League debate in Canton where Gov. Peter Norbeck and Tom Ayres heated up the stage.

Eventually, his dress and speech became Americanized, and by the time he graduated from Canton Lutheran Normal School he was awarded a scholarship in debate from State College in Brookings. Scarlet fever cut his first college try short. After a stint as a hired hand on a farm, followed by a year as a country school teacher at Bancroft, he enrolled at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion where he became a good scholar, top debater and student council member.

He graduated with honors in 1931 and got a teaching job at Rapid City. But when school funds were embezzled by a local official, jeopardizing teacher salaries, he moved across the state to Webster and began a lifelong affair with Day County.

Sig returned to USD in 1935 to get a law degree. When he graduated, his goal was to return to Webster and establish a law practice. But he kept getting interrupted. First it was World War II, where he served as a legal officer in the Navy. Then, upon his return to Webster, he was persuaded to run for Attorney General. That followed two terms as governor, 10 years as a Federal Trade Commissioner, and eight years as a circuit court judge. Between almost every career change, he returned to Webster to try to get that law practice going.

Considering his love for Webster, it was not surprising that when he finally retired in 1975, he chose to stay right there, in the modest, two story white-frame house that he’s called home for many years.

He still keeps a second story office downtown — a place to stack his books and occasionally hang his hat. But mostly, the office has been a great excuse to put on his trademark suit and tie and walk down Main Street, where everyone greets him as either “governor” or “judge” or just “Sig.” This is his town. You get the feeling that they might even like to rename it for their graying favorite son. Andersonville? Sigtown?

But it won’t happen. Sig would be the first to object. He’d note that there would be too great an expense involved in redoing the road signs, maps and directories, not to mention the poor business people who would need to toss out all their Webster stationary and envelopes.

The county commissioners did name a room in the courthouse after him. Located adjacent to the county museum, it will be a showplace for some of the former governor’s photographs and memorabilia.

Until recently, he has enjoyed excellent health in retirement. However, at 84 years of age, he had a setback last winter and we visited him at the Day County Hospital, where we found him chipper and anxious to get back downtown. You can’t practice law from a hospital bed.

About all you can do in a hospital is tell stories, and that’s what he did.

He relishes the early days in politics. Soon after graduating from law school, he ran for State’s Attorney in Day County. Although the county is traditionally Republican, it had temporarily swayed to the Democratic side of the ballot due to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Sam Buhler, a legendary political leader in northeastern South Dakota, was GOP county chairman. He rallied the Republicans by holding over 40 events in country schoolhouses throughout the county.

His Democratic opponent was a friend and former roommate, Lyman Melby. Both were nervously anticipating the early returns on election night. Finally, word came that the Oak Gulch precinct totals had arrived at the courthouse. Melby and Anderson and other candidates ran to the auditor’s office, where it was announced that for State’s Attorney, the results were: Anderson, 29; Melby, 29.

Oak Gulch didn’t launch his political career, but the other precincts gave him a victory. He was re-elected two years later, and before serving the second term he was appointed Assistant Attorney General in Pierre. Then, after four years of service as a legal officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he returned to Webster. Friends urged him to run for Attorney General. War veterans make good candidates, they explained, and he even had experience in the office.

Again postponing plans to get that Webster law practice established, he entered his name as a candidate.

Sig’s four years in the attorney general’s office were highlighted by a “Stamp Out Crime” program that was popular everywhere except, perhaps, in Deadwood, where main street entrepreneurs occasionally forgot that the Black Hills were not located in Nevada.

“We burned up a lot of slot machines in our day,” he says. “And we prosecuted a lot of people.”

He remembers a day when law officers carted an especially ornate and fine-crafted roulette wheel out of Deadwood tavern and lined it up with other gambling devices to be burned. A lady proprietor, appreciative of the craftsmanship, pleaded with Anderson to spare the game of chance. “That lady stood there and cried as they burned up the machine,” he says.

If he were in office today, he says, he would be strongly opposed to the new lottery program. “I really think we don’t need gambling as a source of revenue in South Dakota.”

As Attorney General, it was Anderson’s responsibility to witness South Dakota’s only state execution when convicted murderer George Sitts was led to an electric chair in the Sioux Falls penitentiary on April 8, 1947. “It was a rainy night, dripping outside, just the way the book said it should be,” recalls Anderson. “I walked in and there was Sitts. My, what a muscular fellow. He had been a stunt man in a circus. I said, ‘George, how are you.’ He said, ‘Not so bad, under the circumstances.’ We shook hands.”

Anderson said officers then put a hood over Sitts’s head and led him into the execution room, where he was strapped to the chair. The warden asked the prisoner if he wished to make a statement before they proceeded. “Warden,” said Sitts, “this is the first time the police have helped me out of jail.”

Then, recalls Anderson, there was a “Swish! Swash! Smell!!! And it was over.” Sitts was pronounced dead.

Sig calls it “the big one.” Of all his elections, nothing compares with the 1950 battle for the governorship. Again, both parties wanted qualified war veterans. The GOP contest became a five-way race, with Sig and war hero Joe Foss eventually rising to the top.

Foss was a World War II flying ace, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor who downed 26 enemy planes. He campaigned by plane around the state, a tactic that not only speeded his travels but also was a constant reminder of his achievements.

“Every time a plane flew over, a little kid would say, ‘Hey, that’s Joe Foss up there,'” laughs Anderson. “No one had any battleships for Anderson.”

Sig campaigned hard. He and his wife, Vivian, left Pierre each day after work in their Chevrolet coupe, grabbing only a few Hershey bars for nourishment, and traveled from town to town. People liked the gentlemanly, soft-spoken Attorney General. And he was a natural campaigner. He had a command of the language, knew the issues and hardly ever forgot a name.

Most people felt that none of the five candidates would get the required 35 percent majority, and that a nominee would be selected at the state Republican convention. But Anderson narrowly crossed that threshold, and became the nominee.

His Democratic opponent in the fall was Joe Robbie, a young attorney who went on to become owner of the Miami Dolphins. As a Democrat, Robbie was the immediate underdog. Voter registrations then favored the GOP by a three to one margin. Republican gatherings drew much larger crowds, and Robbie was desperate to get his message out. He started an innovative attack of challenging Sig to a debate at almost every stop. He even brought along a chair for his “absent” foe. He’d tell his audience, “That chair is for Sigurd Anderson. He refuses to debate me.”

Anderson, now a skilled orator, was anxious to debate Robbie. But any such idea was vetoed by friends and supporters. “Are you cray? Ignore him!” they told Anderson.

The strategy worked. Using his lowkey, friendly style of campaigning, he won the election by 55,000 votes. Two years later, he was re-elected by a plurality of 203,102 votes.

The boy who couldn’t speak English when he started school was governor of South Dakota.

Though in years since it has become a cliche, Sig really did treat state government like a business. When the U.S. Air Force loaned him a plane to drop hay bales to starving cattle after a blizzard, Sig went along and helped push the bales out. Then he returned to Pierre and insisted on paying for use of the aircraft. “I believe that you pay your own way,” he said. “We tried our level best to pay off the federal government.”

Air Force personnel couldn’t understand that logic, and didn’t know how to accept the payment or where to put the money.

When you are governor of South Dakota, he said, people call you for just about any problem. After one heavy snowstorm, a Pierre area rancher called to complain that the county hadn’t yet plowed his road.

“But it’s absolutely, without question, the most challenging job you can have. It is the greatest thing next to being president of the United States,” said Sig.

His views melded well with the rest of South Dakota. “I didn’t believe in sin. I was pretty slow on drinking and gambling legislation.”

That didn’t make him a naysayer, however. He was an avid backer of building the dams on the Missouri River and worked to conciliate ranchers who would be losing land. He still remembers being at a hearing in Washington, D.C., when a prominent South Dakota rancher walked in with a stone and told the congressmen, “This is what they want to irrigate!”

He said there were also concerns about Indian burial grounds and many people were worried that the dams might break, causing even worse flooding than the river valley suffered without the project.

Of all the programs he worked on as governor, he cites the dams as the most important for South Dakota. Ranking a close second, however, is the fact that he stayed within a budget. “Spending within your means, that’s an old Scandinavian trait. You always payoff your debts.”

As governor, he retired the Rural Credit bonds owed by the state, created the Legislative Research Council, expanded the care of the mentally ill, accelerated the highway construction program, and terminated a 3 percent sales tax after it raised enough to pay World War II vets a soldiers’ bonus. Not many states were rolling back taxes in those days of growth, and the South Dakota governor made headlines in the Wall Street Journal that day.

His happiest day of being governor, however, had nothing to do with taxes or dams or roads. It was Jan. 11, 1954, when he and Vivian had a baby girl, Kristin Karen. She was only the second child born to a governor while in office.

Kristin is now editor of the Brookings Daily Register, and friends say Sig’s house is stacked with copies of that publication. “I don’t want to brag, but she is one of the best writers around,” he says with a grin.

Upon completion of his governorship, Sig returned to Webster, hoping to get that law practice established at last, with an eye on maybe running for Congress. But President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed him to the Federal Trade Commission and he and his family moved to Washington, D.C., without campaigning.

Sig held the FTC post for 10 years. He enjoyed the challenge of investigating anti-trust activities and laughs at how slow the process could be. “It took us years and years to get them to strike ‘liver’ off Carter’s Little Liver Pills and make them call it what it is … and we bad 300 or 400 lawyers under us!”

The Andersons promptly headed west to Webster when his second term was up. He made two other tries at elective office. In 1962, while still at the FTC, be sought the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate after Francis Case died in office. He lost the nomination to Joe Bottum at a long convention, and Bottum ultimately lost to George McGovern.

Sig also sought the GOP nomination for governor in 1964, but lost to Nils Boe. At last, maybe he could really practice law. He was just getting started when Boe appointed him judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. At least that position allowed him to stay in Webster. He retired from the judgeship in 1975, and since then he has enjoyed retirement.

He has that law office near Main Street. And when his health allows, he’s downtown every day. But be hasn’t run any advertisements. Fact is, he says, “Webster always had plenty of good attorneys.”

Editor’s Note: This story is edited from the May/June 1988 issue of South Dakota Magazine. To order a copy or to subscribe, call (800) 456-5117.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Hanging With My Political Neighbors

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

Now I know why Rick Weiland is smiling.

I had the pleasure of touring South Dakota last week and talking politics with a wide array of my neighbors. It was a blast.

After charging up with a sunny morning run up Lookout Mountain, I started my political tour in Rapid City, where I interviewed Gordon Howie, our newly certified Independent candidate for U.S. Senate. We talked about EB-5, the federal budget, abortion and guns. Gordon threatened to shoot me, and I threatened to run, further supporting my argument that guns don’t offer nearly as much utility as a good pair of sneakers. We smiled and laughed through arguments and agreements alike.

Later in the week I headed for friendlier turf, the Sioux Falls Democratic Forum. I listened to aspiring pol Cody Hausman discourse and field lots of questions on how Democrats can draw the youth vote (emphasize ideals over wonkishness; talk global economy, diversity, and civil rights). I watched Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Lowe wind Dem stems with a passionate campaign speech. And I shook hands and chatted up all sorts of fellow hopeful Dems.

That afternoon I sat down for coffee with Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Myers. Once we got past his initial ire at my past blog critique of his political theater, we had a good hour-long conversation about the policies he’d like to discuss with South Dakota and the problems he’d like to fix.

Then I raced up to Brookings to join my friend and co-blogger Toby Uecker for a Corinna Robinson fundraiser at former state senator Pam Merchant’s house. We chatted up our Brookings neighbors, Corinna’s staff, and Corinna herself about issues and campaign tactics. Toby and I then spent the rest of the evening evaluating the event and plotting Dem revolution (over a hot Greek Supreme loaded with gyro meat at George’s, one of the best pizzas on the prairie).

Toby and I continued our political analysis over breakfast at Cottonwood CafÈ (bagels, oatmeal, and political discourse downtown — a fine Saturday morning) before I chased a spring dust storm east to Pierre and sailed on to Sturgis, where friends of the blog invited me for afternoon tea and more political conversation. We talked the Rally, road construction, campaign finance … just the sort of weekend conversation you’d expect from your neighbors, right?

I was going to cap my tour off by putting my feet up at the Franklin Hotel. But then I got a text telling me to get up to the Lincoln Day Dinner in Spearfish, so up Highway 85 and through the I-90 obstacle course I went. I stationed myself discreetly at the back of the hall, tweeting the speeches. Even as I tweeted, my Republican neighbors greeted me warmly. I enjoyed pleasant conversations with Larry Rhoden and his wife Sandy, Pat Miller and her husband Walter Dale, Stace Nelson and his much prettier, quieter, better half Aiza. I got an unexpected and hilarious ribbing from Shantel Krebs. I lassoed a Tea Party activist and made progress in changing his mind on Keystone XL (two words: eminent domain). In a Republican room where a casual observer might think a liberal blogger would get tarred and feathered, I received almost nothing but warm handshakes and rational conversation from neighbors who share my keen interest in good policy for South Dakota.

South Dakotans are a friendly political bunch, even the ones with whom I disagree. My week hanging out with them and talking politics was a week well spent.

Editor’s Note: Cory Heidelberger is our political columnist from the left. For a conservative perspective on politics, please look for columns by Dr. Ken Blanchard on this site.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and has taught math, English, speech, and French at high schools East and West River.