Political Smokeout

SD politicians’ March Madness picks

Here’s a confession: college sports have never been my thing. I went to a small, D-III school, as did everyone in my immediate family and much of my extended family. So I’ve got no real loyalties to any university athletics. Generally I prefer to watch pro sports.

So I won’t be filling out a bracket this year. I wouldn’t have much more to go on other than seedings and mascots, and I don’t want to be that guy.

But the people I interview and write about on a daily basis have no such weaknesses. Gov. Dennis Daugaard, Sen. Tim Johnson, Rep. Kristi Noem and Sen. John Thune have all filled out brackets for the men’s basketball tournament, and all agreed to release them so I — and, more importantly, you, the reader — could take a look at them.

Spoiler: They all think the SDSU men are going to do well. Some even think the Jackrabbits are going to do REALLY well.

Not only did all four top leaders pick the Jackrabbits to upset better-seeded Michigan in the Round of 64, but all of them also picked SDSU to win in the Round of 32 over Virginia Commonwealth University.

The four combined to pick three different national champions. No one team was picked by all of them to reach the Final Four.

Below are their brackets — plus a few more bonus brackets.

UPDATE: Drue Aman, an Argus Leader Sports copy editor, was kind enough to send over his analysis of the brackets.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard

Daugaard stuck with the home state team for a few rounds, but even South Dakota’s governor doesn’t think SDSU can beat the number one-seeded Kansas team — Daugaard’s pick to win it all, over Duke.

AMAN: A couple upsets (namely No. 4 St. Louis over No. 1 Louisville, No. 6 Butler over No. 2 Miami) coincide with the theme of parity this college basketball season. Not too outlandish of a bracket, however, as three No. 1 seeds and No. 2 Duke comprise the Final Four. South Dakota State also wins two games in this bracket. Are the mathematical odds due for a No. 13 to reach the Sweet Sixteen? Maybe. It’s happened four times since 1985.

Sen. Tim Johnson

South Dakota’s senior senator, on the other hand, has no problems seeing the boys from Brookings toppling Kansas — or Indiana, or mighty top-seeded Louisville. Johnson’s bracket has SDSU winning it all.

AMAN: This bracket says a couple things: 1) The folks charged with assigning seeds know exactly what they’re doing (Aside from Michigan State, South Dakota State and Minnesota, no upset picks in the bracket); 2) We’ve seen but a small sample of just how good SDSU is. Maybe so, but the Jacks are obvious long-shots. About 300:1 to win their region of the bracket, according to Las Vegas.

Rep. Kristi Noem

If you get a sense of déja vu looking at Noem’s bracket, you’re not alone. Like Daugaard, she has Kansas as the eventual champions, beating SDSU in the regional semifinals. Unlike Daugaard, Noem thinks Louisville will be the runner-up. (Noem, it’s worth noting, is the only SDSU alum of the bunch — Daugaard, Johnson and Thune all went to USD.)

AMAN: New Mexico’s selection as a Final Four team makes sense when considering how rare all four No. 1 seeds play that deep into the tournament (only time: 2009). Four 11 and 12 seeds (Bucknell, Minnesota, Oregon and Belmont) reach the Sweet 16 in this bracket which, though unlikely, more than one traditionally make it that far. South Dakota State beating Michigan and Virginia Commonwealth before falling to Kansas would do untold things for the Jackrabbits’ program, if what Noem predicts comes true.

Sen. John Thune

Hoops-mad Thune went with Noem and Daugaard in seeing the Jackrabbits falling to Kansas. But KU won’t go too much further if Thune’s bracket proves right — they’ll beat Georgetown but then lose to Miami, who will in turn fall to ultimate champion Louisville.

AMAN: Two No.1’s and two No.2’s for a Final Four should augur well for accuracy (it appears Thune began writing Duke to beat Louisville in the Midwest regional final before changing his pick, which in the long history of my bracket-filling days, I can relate to a miserably great deal). Overall, a safe bracket with an agreeable amount of upset picks and the tournament’s top seed (Louisville) winning it all. I believe I saw Thune verbally place SDSU in the Final Four, also?

Not enough for you? Here’s a few other brackets from the people who’ve responded to my requests so far:

First Lady Linda Daugaard

While her husband tempered his Jackrabbit fandom by picking Kansas, First Lady Linda Daugaard sees SDSU going all the way — over Creighton.

State Senate Minority Leader Jason Frerichs

Surprisingly, proud SDSU alum Frerichs has the Jackrabbits exiting earlier in the tournament than any of the statewide leaders. Does that say more about knowledge of basketball or knowledge politics? Frerichs sees SDSU beating Michigan but losing to VCU. Louisville wins it all, over Georgetown.

South Dakota Democratic Party chairman Ben Nesselhuf

Nesselhuf also sees SDSU losing in the Round of 32 to VCU. (I’d say it was something in the Democratic water, but Tim Johnson had the Jackrabbits going all the way.) He’s another Louisville pick, over Kansas.

Argus Leader managing editor Patrick Lalley

Can you tell which one of these amateur bracketologists isn’t a politician? Maybe the man who picks a quick exit for the Jackrabbits in their first game. My boss Patrick Lalley sees Michigan beating SDSU and VCU, only to lose to Kansas. He also tabs Louisville for champs, over Indiana.

I’ve asked a few more South Dakota politicians for their brackets; if they come in, I’ll add them to the list.

Why Daugaard vetoed SB 115

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has confirmed the earlier reports that he would veto Senate Bill 115, which raises the fee on fertilizer to pay for more fertilizer research.

Below is the governor’s explanation of the veto, which argues the tax increase is particularly objectionable because the agency that would benefit is already receiving an increase in funding:

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am returning to you Senate Bill 115 with my VETO.  Senate Bill 115 is entitled, “An Act to increase the commercial fertilizer inspection fee for purposes of fertilizer-related research and to create the Nutrient Research Education Council to promote such research.”

Since 1949, our Department of Agriculture has operated a program to insure the integrity of fertilizer sales and distribution in our state.  For over sixty years, fees collected on fertilizer sales have been no more than was necessary to cover program costs.  This is the definition of a fee under our laws: an amount collected to offset the administrative costs of a program.

Senate Bill 115 raises the fertilizer fee by fifteen cents – not to offset increased costs of administering the fertilizer program, but to raise money for the Agricultural Experiment Station.  This is not a fee increase; this is a tax.  I oppose this new tax and ask you to sustain my veto.

While I strongly believe that we should not raise or create any taxes while our economy recovers and stabilizes, the new tax in Senate Bill 115 is particularly objectionable.  This tax benefits a government agency – the Agricultural Experiment Station - that is already receiving an ongoing increase of more than 10 percent and an increase of 8 new full-time equivalent state employees.

I strongly support the Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) and know the value of agriculture research.  That is whyI recommended a $1,000,000 increase in my FY14 budget proposal.  You adopted that recommendation, and added still another $500,000 in one-time additional funding. 

The FY14 budget appropriates $10,896,938 in general funds, more than fully restoring the FY12 general fund cuts.  Beyond these dollars, federal funds andother funds spending has increased almost 16 percent over pre-cut levels.  The Agricultural Experiment Station is one of the few programs in state government that has seen its funding restored fully.

I support the Agricultural Experiment Station and am very proud of the fine work they do.  I have recommended an ongoing general fund increase greater than 10 percent.  Employee compensation is increased on top of that.  The legislature has already added still another $500,000 to those dollars.  Beyond these general fund increases, AES federal funds and other funds levels are also much higher today.  I hope you will support that funding rather than support the creation of a new tax, and I respectfully request that you sustain my veto.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dennis Daugaard

‘Building South Dakota’ signed into law

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has just signed the “Building South Dakota” economic development package into law.

That omnibus law includes tax rebates for large projects, investments in education and infrastructure, and the redirection of some of the state’s “Unclaimed Property” revenue.

It was a proposal negotiated and written by legislators, not by the executive branch. Daugaard was involved in the negotiations but didn’t come on board until lawmakers added a “trigger” to cancel funding of the initiative when the state undergoes budget trouble.

Because the bill had an emergency clause, it takes effect immediately, and not on the usual July 1 start date.

Daugaard also signed several other bills Wednesday morning, including campaign finance reform, teaching scholarships, sales tax collection reform and the MMA-oversight bill he previous opposed. The full list after the jump.

Read More

Updated: Daugaard’s first veto

There’s no announcement yet, but a lawmaker says Gov. Dennis Daugaard has vetoed his first bill of 2013.

On Tuesday, I previewed the batch of bills still awaiting action by Daugaard, and looked at the possibility  that we could see no vetoes this year.

“I haven’t got the sense from conversations with the governor’s staff that there will be anything upsetting,” said Sen. Russell Olson, R-Wentworth, the Senate Majority Leader. “The bills the executive branch was tracking and opposed to, that I was aware of, he’s already signed.”

But yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Jason Frerichs highlighted one bill that could draw a veto that I hadn’t focused on: Senate Bill 115, which increases fertilizer fees and uses the revenue to fund fertilizer research.

“I would expect 115 will be vetoed, the fertilizer increase,” said Frerichs, a supporter of the measure.

After tweeting about this, Sen. Shantel Krebs, R-Renner, confirmed Frerichs’ speculation:

@argusmontgomery:yes the Gov did veto SB115.

March 20, 2013

Krebs is the prime sponsor for SB 115. Prime sponsors typically get courtesy calls when their bill is vetoed before Daugaard announces his action to the public:

As the prime sponsor of SB115 I got the call early this morning letting me know the Gov will be vetoing it. I appreciated the phone call.

— Shantel Krebs (@shantelkrebs) March 20, 2013

SB 115 passed both houses over the two-thirds threshold needed to override a veto, but it did have sizable opposition in both chambers. Supporters said the fertilizer industry was asking to tax themselves, which made it okay. Opponents said it was wrong for government to tax private businesses to fund research.

Daugaard will sign bill regulating mixed martial arts

In a reversal, Gov. Dennis Daugaard says he will sign a bill regulating fighting sports.

Daugaard had fiercely opposed creating an athletic commission to oversee sports such as boxing and mixed martial arts. He still doesn’t have kind words for the violence in sports like mixed martial arts, but says he’s reconciled to the idea of a commission.

“One thing I’ve learned about this cagefighting, it’s going on now, and it’s going on in an unregulated fashion,” Daugaard said Friday morning. “I know some of the proponents of this bill made the argument that regulating it would create more safety than exists today, and I have to agree that’s true.”

That’s not to say Daugaard has become a fan of mixed martial arts.

“Would I like this kind of thing to not occur at all in South Dakota? I would, yes,” he said. “It doesn’t deserve the word sport in my mind.”

But he said the bill passed overwhelmingly by the South Dakota Legislature has satisfied some of his concerns. So has the inclusion, at Daugaard’s request, of $95,000 to help get the athletic commission off the ground.

“Those things can be addressed now in the form that was passed by the houses, so I plan to sign that,” Daugaard said.

The governor had opposed the proposal forcefully throughout the legislative session, and aides previously suggested he might veto the bill or let it become law without his signature.

The measure creating the South Dakota Athletic Commission will take effect on July 1. Daugaard has promised to appoint members to the commission, unlike a prior boxing commission he and former Gov. Mike Rounds left unfilled.

Daugaard endorses Rounds for Senate

“I don’t think this should be a surprise,” Gov. Dennis Daugaard tells The Daily Republic, and indeed I’m not even sure to what degree it’s new information. Daugaard has always been supportive of Rounds and consulted with him prior to Rounds’ Senate announcement. But this may be the first time Daugaard has been recorded as explicitly saying he’s backing Rounds in the 2014 Senate primary, though this has clearly been a fact for a long time.

Of course, Daugaard and primary endorsements have a history of their own. Will the governor get any significant backlash from endorsing Rounds, as he did when he dipped his toe into legislative primaries?

Daugaard offers to run Wind Cave campground

With the federal sequester leading to cutbacks in national parks, Gov. Dennis Daugaard today offered to have South Dakota operate a campground at Wind Cave National Park that would otherwise stay closed this year due to the budget cuts.

Daugaard, in a release, said keeping the campground open would attract visitors, and that he believed the state could operate it at a profit.

This isn’t the first time Daugaard has stepped into a federal budget stalemate with an offer to have the state run things. In 2011, when the debt ceiling was threatening a government shutdown, Daugaard volunteered to have South Dakota operate Mount Rushmore.

At the time, the feds said no.

“We thank the governor for his offer and appreciate his support for the national parks,” Kendra Barkoff, press secretary for the Department of the Interior… “Unfortunately, if Congress is not able to reach agreement and the federal government is shut down, all national parks would have to be closed.”

Will he have any better luck this time?

For more perspective on the issue, check out this Washington Post article on the impact of the sequester on Yellowstone National Park, and the decisions facing the governor of Wyoming.

(The decision faced by Wyoming was somewhat different — it was about plowing roads, not operating federal campgrounds, so it’s not necessarily apples-to-apples.)

Daugaard signs abortion counseling bill

Weekends and holidays no longer count toward South Dakota’s 72-hour pre-abortion waiting period.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday signed a bill enacting that delay. Advocates said excluding weekends would give women more time to consider their decision to have an abortion and to get counseling from pregnancy help centers, clergy and physicians.

Opponents said it was insulting to women and a burden on them.

Daugaard signs ‘school sentinels’ bill

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has signed the “school sentinels” bill letting schools arm volunteer defenders.

Hotly debated this legislative session, it was pitched as a way for small schools without nearby law enforcement to protect themselves against shooters or other dangers.

They also emphasized the local choice — no school would be forced to implement a sentinels program.

Opponents said adding more guns to schools was dangerous and unnecessary, and called for a delay to study the broader issue of school security.