Sex Offenders
And Jim Hundstad's explanation as to why he voted against making them report information to the police.

I heard about this one a couple of days ago, and I was fortunate enough to snag some video.

In an Aberdeen League of Women Voters forum, a question was posed to the candidates about how they would protect people from sex offenders. Hundstad's opponent, Brian Johnson got in a zinger about how in 2003 (the same year he tried to impose a new type of property tax) Hundstad voted against HB 1033, an act which required sex offenders to report information to police.

What intrusive information did Hundstad not want child molesters to provide to officials charged with making sure they don't try to have sex with kids again? Oh, intrusive stuff like where they work and/or go to school. So, if a child moilester committed another act like that, he didn't want police to know where to find them.

Catch Brian zinging him for it, and Hundstad's explanation for yourself:



Might that explanation seem plausible? Maybe. But he's leaving out one fact.

Hundstad's horse-poop excuse for an explanation misses one point. HB1033 has nothing to do with making sex offender information public on the internet. It has to do with rapists and molesters telling the police information (including their whereabouts).

Did he offer an amendment to keep that information he was so concerned about strictly private for police? No. His only solution was to try to keep any of it from the police. And in the end he voted against the entire bill.

In the end, when he stood to be counted, Hundstad voted for the sex offenders.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hundstad wants an 'intangible' property tax? Looks like that will simply tax my retirement accounts. Brilliant.

On top of that he's behind this goofy Amendment D.. which he can barely explain and has a hard time defending.
Anonymous said…
HUNSTADT WAS EXCUSED, THE 2 NAYS WERE MADSEN AND ROUNDS ON THE FINAL VOTE,,, HUNSTADT WAS A NO ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT VOTE.
Anonymous said…
Tom Hennies voted to protect Sex Offenders also, and that position cost him dearly in his Rapid City Council race several months ago.
PP said…
Anon 10:39 - we're both right and wrong. (and I've corrected my post)

He voted no on the bill as it passed out of the house the first time. It wasn't just no on an amendment.

When it came back through for concurrence, after it was amended in senate, he didn't have the chance to vote no on it again, because he was excused.

Thanks for catching that,
been there said…
That was over 3 years and several hundred bills ago. It's easy to get two similar bills confused on a moments notice. Jim has a logical and considerate explanation. The info on his employer would be published, internet or not. That could lead to lost business just because an eployer had a good heart and wanted to give the guy a chance. Why do you keep picking on old Jim? PS I'm a republican.
PP said…
It wasn't two similar bills. It was the same one.

And I pick on him because he's barely functional as a legislator.
Anonymous said…
11:28 - The employer had an option. Can the guy. He could have found a job somewhere else where public opinion wouldn't have affected his boss.

People have a right to know where sex offenders are located and what they are doing - especially when the molestation involves children.

And for the record, I'm one of those so-called liberal, pro-choice Democrats.
Anonymous said…
just realized my post 10:39 was all caps, oops, accident, I wasnt yelling,haha.
Chris Madsen said…
Ooohh, at the risk of jumping in on a Jim Hunstad post, it looks like I have a vote to explain. And while I am at it, I am going to take the liberty of also explaining it for the guy who sat next to me when I was Speaker Pro Tempore of the House, Rep. Tim Rounds.

But first, this reminder- if you are going to go look up the votes on various bills, please LEARN HOW TO READ THE JOURNALS! (All caps intended.)

You have to understand what the question was that was being voted upon. Not every vote, especially the final one is a vote for or against the bill. The Madsen and Rounds Nays were Nays to concur in an amendment to the bill placed upon it by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 4 days earlier the House rejected the very same amendment on a voice vote on the floor. Rep. Rounds and I were not voting against the bill, we were voting against the Senate Judiciary amendment and in doing so, supporting the vote the House made in rejecting the amendment.

The bill was clearly going to pass. For crying out loud, it was sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of Attorney General Long and I was a member of the that committee and a Deputy States Attorney at the time.

So, lest any of you think Madsen and Rounds were casting votes in favor of sex offenders-- think again. And if you want to criticize the wisdom of voting against an amendment that allows SSN's of convicted sex offenders to be kept secret on a confidential form (which is what the amendment was) just remember the entire House rejected that very same amendment on a voice vote. We were supporting the House and the bill was going to pass. Criticize that if you will, but at least get the context and the circumstances straight before you do.
PP said…
Chris -

I'm referring to the do pass as amended motion which passed it out of the house to the Senate the first time.
Chris Madsen said…
PP-- Thanks, my comments about reading the Journals were primarily for the benefit of Anon 10:39.

I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea of why Tim Rounds and I voted the way we did on that last vote.
Anonymous said…
Mr Madsen

I can read,,I can see that of 102 possible votes, republicans and democrats, only 2 people voted no.

That by itself is enough to make even the most naive person suspicious.

I would bet at least one of the 100 votes in support would rebut your weak explanation.
signed.
author of post 10:39
Anonymous said…
OR;

Maybe the format of the recorded journal should be changed to make it more clear !!!!
been there said…
Madsen is exactly right,and there is nothing wrong with the Journal. The guy arguing with him is an arrogant boob. The vote that counts here is the first passage in the House where there were 4 NO votes. Also, to the other character out there,are these guys not supposed to get jobs anywhere? How do they know ahead of time how this info may affect the boss and his business?
Anonymous said…
yup, yup, been there,

ok,, Ill give you your point about the first vote, now about that amendment ?

Madsen and Rounds must be the only 2 enlightened representatives, the only 2 to believe the amendment was a bad thing.

you call me arrogant and it was Madsen in a room full of smart folks voting opposite of him ?

I may be arrogant, but if I was one of 2 dissenting votes out of 68, I would be smart enough to LOOK IN THE MIRROR. If I am arrogant, you will need to create a new word to describe Madsen.
Anonymous said…
I wish Brian would run ads having Hustad speak, and say I Brian approve of this as evidence Hunstad is not qualified to be in the Senate.

Hunstad is a nut. What kind of furnace Hunstad?

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