The Senate was busy this week taking final action on all remaining Senate bills as Tuesday was cross-over day, the day all bills must pass the house of origin. With only two weeks left in the 2010 legislative session, the budget has become the major priority of the Legislature and the debate over the budget is beginning to intensify.

The first week of the legislative session, the Democratic caucus released its plan for handling the state’s budget problems. The plan included capping state spending at 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. County governments and school boards in the state are currently confined to this spending cap, but the state government is not.

The plan also included across-the-board cuts to state agencies and departments. Another priority was stopping the growth of full-time state employees. I am very bothered by an attempt to hide some full-time equivalents (FTEs) through HB1052. This bill would exempt students that work for a state institution in some capacity other than work study from the count of FTEs.

The Democratic caucus’s budget proposal also included consolidation of state departments, specifically the office of State Treasure and the Commissioner of School and Public Lands. Yet, this proposal was killed by the majority party, as were nearly all others we offered.

With only two weeks left in the session, we still have heard no solid plans on how the majority plans to handle the budget. I have a lot of affection and respect, both personally and professionally, for the leadership of the Republican Party. I try hard to stay away from partisan politics, both in Pierre and in my articles, but this is absolutely irresponsible. Year after year, budget issues get pushed to the last few weeks of the legislative session. In difficult financial times like these, the Legislature should not be waiting until the last minute to formulate a plan for the state’s budget.

Determining the state’s budget is one of the most important tasks of the Legislature. The next few weeks will be filled with intense debate over how the taxpayers’ dollars should be spent. When dealing with your money, it is important that the Legislature take the time needed to make responsible spending decision. I will attempt to do just that in the next few weeks.

The Legislature just finished its sixth week of the 2010 legislative session. The Legislature has begun to consider more bills that have the potential to greatly impact the lives of the people of South Dakota.

As always, education has become a top priority of mine this Legislative session. As a member of the Senate Education Committee, I have had the opportunity to consider a variety of bills that will affect our state’s educational system. One bill in particular greatly impacts our state’s funding for K-12 education and will be a major improvement to our state’s education system.

I have long been a proponent of changing the funding formula for our state’s K-12 education. The current system does not adequately provide the funding needed to offer the students of our state the education they deserve. These young students are the future leaders of our state and giving them the education they need to succeed is essential to the future success of South Dakota.

SB 124, a bill sponsored by Sen. Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls, will change the funding formula for our state’s K-12 schools by linking educational funding to the projected change in state general fund revenue. The bill passed the Senate Education Committee and the full Senate Chamber with my support. The bill has now moved to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Currently, education is funded at a rate of 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. SB 124 would increases funding to 4 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is higher, and links the state’s revenues to educational funding. Had the education funding formula in this bill been in place in prior years, education in South Dakota would have received much more funding.

However, the downfall of the bill is that in years state revenue does not increase, funding for education will not increase. Therefore, next year the increase for educational funding will be 0 percent. Sen. Sandy Jerstad of Sioux Falls offered an amendment in committee and on the floor of the Senate that would provide a 1.2 percent increase for educational funding next year. The amendment received my support but failed in the Senate by one vote.

*
Even though the bill does not provide for an increase in education funding for next year, the bill is an improvement to the funding formula that is currently in place. In tough economic times like these, we must all be fiscally responsible including the state’s Legislature. However, educational funding must always remain a priority to ensure a bright future for our state.

I look forward to continuing to serve you and the people of District 17 as the legislative session begins to wind down. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or concerns. I can be reached at sen.nesselhuf@state.sd.us or at 605-624-6178, my home phone.

“I think that this is indicative of the support we have received from every corner of South Dakota. Clearly people are responding to our message of providing more open government and ensuring every citizen’s right to vote.” Nesselhuf, a state senator from Vermillion said.

Senator Nesselhuf raised more than all other Secretary of State Candidates combined. The Nesselhuf campaign received over 230 contributions from over 50 communities in South Dakota.

The reports are filed in the S.D. Secretary of State’s office in Pierre and show totals of all candidate contributions and expenditures during calendar year 2009.

Larry Dalhstrom, a retired Lutheran minister from Rapid City and the Nesselhuf campaign treasurer said “We couldn’t be more excited about this campaign. Ben is a breath of fresh air in the Secretary of State campaign and people see that new energy.”

“I think that this is indicative of the support we have received from every corner of South Dakota. Clearly people are responding to our message of providing more open government and ensuring every citizen’s right to vote.” Nesselhuf, a state senator from Vermillion said.

Senator Nesselhuf raised more than all other Secretary of State Candidates combined. The Nesselhuf campaign received over 230 contributions from over 50 communities in South Dakota.

The reports are filed in the S.D. Secretary of State’s office in Pierre and show totals of all candidate contributions and expenditures during calendar year 2009.

Larry Dalhstrom, a retired Lutheran minister from Rapid City and the Nesselhuf campaign treasurer said “We couldn’t be more excited about this campaign. Ben is a breath of fresh air in the Secretary of State campaign and people see that new energy.”

From that standpoint, a proposal to streamline voting sites could only be a step up.

The Sioux Falls School District is pushing for a change in state law to use about 10 voting centers instead of precincts for the 2011 election.

Under the pilot test, each voting center would be open to all voters – regardless of where they live – and use networked electronic voting booths so that no one could vote twice.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson is reserving judgment on the idea until he sees language of the proposed legislation. Nelson’s main concern is a good one – protecting the voting system from fraud.

However, given that no one’s hardly even voting in school board elections – most notably when there isn’t a companion hot-topic ballot issue – it’s clear that Sioux Falls needs to at least try this pilot system in order to possibly boost voter turnout.

But to do that, the district needs legislative approval.

Minnehaha County Auditor Sue Roust says the pilot system could save taxpayer money, and that’s certainly important.

What’s more important, though, is creating an effective democratic process – one that encourages participation as much as possible.

From a 3.55 percent voter turnout, there’s a whole lot of room to grow.

So let’s make sure the essential safeguards are in place, but then the Legislature should grant Sioux Falls the ability to give the pilot system a try

The figures come from a 2007 survey conducted by the Government Research Bureau at the University of South Dakota, which researched campaign finance and ballot issue elections for Secretary of State Chris Nelson’s lawsuit against Hunt.

After two unfavorable rulings from a circuit judge, Nelson last month ended his lawsuit against Hunt, which aimed to reveal the identity of a $750,000 donor to the failed 2006 campaign to end abortion in South Dakota. Attorney General Marty Jackley recently released the survey results for the first time to the Argus Leader.

Because the case never went to trial, the poll was not used in court. But the responses from 794 South Dakotans indicate strong support for enforcing campaign finance disclosure laws, no matter their party affiliation.

Nelson, who hadn’t seen the survey results until Wednesday, said they are consistent with what he has heard from people throughout the state.

“There’s no question about it. We had a large number of people that told me they thought this was the right thing to do,” he said.

Survey participants were told their answers would be used by the attorney general in a legal case, but the questions did not mention Hunt’s name or the facts of the case.

In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.

On other questions, South Dakotans said they like having the opportunity to make laws through the initiative and referendum process, even though the ballot wording often is confusing and they see the process as somewhat co-opted by special interests.

“Viewed together, it is clear that voters value the process, value disclosure information and value the efforts of the state to support their information needs,” USD professor Rich Braunstein wrote in an analysis of the survey results.

The problem for the state was that the laws in 2006 – which were amended in the controversy’s wake – allowed Hunt to hide his client’s identity by forming a corporation; donors of $100 and more were required to disclose their personal names and addresses but corporations were not. Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell also ruled that the state could not file a civil lawsuit in an attempt to enforce a law with criminal penalties.

Had Caldwell allowed the case to go to trial, the state planned to introduce the survey results as evidence that the statute holds up against First Amendment scrutiny. Other states have used surveys for that purpose in similar cases.

Steve Sanford, Hunt’s lawyer, was surprised that even one out of four respondents thought of disclosure laws as more of a free speech infringement than valuable voting information.
“It’s not surprising that most people would think campaign finance disclosure laws are a good thing, generally,” Sanford said.

“The state just had inadequate laws to do what the public thinks should be done.”