Curt Bernard on-line ad. And I still don't think he can hold two offices at once.

In the race against Republican candidate Jean Hunhoff, Yankton Mayor Curt Bernard is doing some on-line advertising at the Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan.

As it was off to the side, I darn near missed this ad. But as on-line ads go, it's pretty good.

Also, don't forget my prior post on this race where I note that I don't think he can legally hold the mayor's seat and the legislative seat at the same time:
I say the State Constitution does NOT allow him to hold both offices at once. How am I reaching this conclusion? Let’s take a look at my prior post on the matter where Pat Haley sits in the same situation:

But by the action of Pat Haley taking the oath of office, he now holds two offices at once, that of Legislator and that of City Council member. And I'm not so sure those offices are compatible.

Check out Attorney General's opinion 82-23, (from Mark Meierhenry) which says in part:

The South Dakota Constitution Article III, § 3, setting out the qualifications for state legislative office, provides, inter alia, that:

No judge or clerk of any court, . . . or persons holding any lucrative office under the United States, or of this state, . . . shall be a member of the Legislature: provided, that appointments in the militia, the offices of notary public and justice of the peace shall not be considered lucrative.
As usual, there was a bit of disagreement from the readers. However, I'd like to know where the party is on this one? There's enough ambiguity to justify asking for an opinion.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Always insisting on singling out a democrat and ignoring when republicans hold two offices at once.

Lou Sebert (R-Mitchell) is a state rep and the mayor of mitchell right now, but PP only cares about Pat Haley (D-Huron) being on the city council as a legislator and Curt Bernard (D- Yankton) being both mayor and senator.

The fact that republicans want to set one standard for democrats and another for republicans shows that R's can't be trusted to apply standards equally or to police themselves.
Anonymous said…
I don't think PP agreed with that one either.
Anonymous said…
"No ... persons holding any lucrative office ... of this state..."

Mayor is not an "office ... of this state." It's a city/local office, not a state office.
Anonymous said…
in meierhenry's decision...

"it is my opinion that a conflict of interest would exist if an individual held the office of county commissioner and state legislator simultaneously."

"A lucrative office would be one in which the holder of such office would be compensated for performing the duties attendant upon the office. Wills v. Potts, 377 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1964); 1927-28 AGR 240. The amount of such compensation is immaterial."

"A member of the Veterans Commission holds a lucrative office within the meaning of Article III, § 3 of the South Dakota Constitution.A lucrative office would be one in which the holder of such office would be compensated for performing the duties attendant upon the office. Wills v. Potts, 377 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1964); 1927-28 AGR 240. The amount of such compensation is immaterial."

So, is mayor more lucrative than a member of he vet's commission? Think so.
Anonymous said…
Being mayor may be lucrative, but his compensation cannot be established by the legislature (therfore no conflict as with a county commisioner) and since the office is not a state or federal office it fails the other test as well.
Anonymous said…
Here's another law where you have to ask how it affects Bernard's attempt to hold two offices at once:

Constitution Article III, § 12. No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any civil office in the state which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during the term for which he was elected, nor shall any member receive any civil appointment from the Governor, the Governor and senate, or from the Legislature during the term for which he shall have been elected, and all such appointments and all votes given for any such members for any such office or appointment shall be void; nor shall any member of the Legislature during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within one year thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th