Who decides?
There's an article in the Rapid City Journal that describes what could take place if one of the candidates for Mayor, Representative Alan Hanks, is chosen in the runoff election. But it leaves out the other side of the equation:
One question directed to Rep. Alan Hanks, R-Rapid City, during Thursday’s downtown association meeting asked who Gov. Mike Rounds would appoint to the state legislature Hanks is elected Rapid City mayor and resigns his District 32 seat.
Hanks said he can’t speak for Rounds but said the governor would probably not appoint Elli Schwiesow or Stan Adelstein, who squared off in the District 32 Republican state senate primary a year ago.
and...
Technically, if Hanks wins the runoff, he is not required to resign from the legislature. But Hanks reiterated Thursday that he will leave the legislature if elected mayor.
Read that all here. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't depend too strongly on any campaign promise made by Representative Hanks, it should be noted that in both cases, a replacement of some nature would be made since both people are elected officials.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that in the case of Sam Kooiker, a special election would be held to replace his seat if he was elected to the office of mayor.
So, in addition to the choice the voters in Rapid City are going to make on who their next leader is going to be, they'll also be making a choice as to who will decide a new leader for the town. Will the people elect one of their own for a new city councilman, or will the Governor choose a new Representative.
So, who will be the decider? The people or the Governor?
Kind of interesting when you look at it that way.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that in the case of Sam Kooiker, a special election would be held to replace his seat if he was elected to the office of mayor.
So, in addition to the choice the voters in Rapid City are going to make on who their next leader is going to be, they'll also be making a choice as to who will decide a new leader for the town. Will the people elect one of their own for a new city councilman, or will the Governor choose a new Representative.
So, who will be the decider? The people or the Governor?
Kind of interesting when you look at it that way.
Comments
He would be voting on issues pertaining to Rapid in the legislature.
Just a thought.
You're acting a little Argus-ish.
Any damage Alan will do in Pierre will be minimal compared to the damage Adelstein will do when Rounds appoints him to fill Alan's seat.
Horrors!!!
There are plenty of good people to do the job in Pierre. Why settle for two good people when you can have 3? Hanks as mayor brings about the maximum positive change in RC's political equation. And bottom line, I think that's what voters are after right now.
We are all well aware of his alliances to one particular party, and he has never claimed to be an unbiased "reporter" like many in the MSM.
Glad PP isn't a real journalist.
I don't think i agree with that for lots of reasons.
Think about it and it doesn't matter what party you are.
1. Alan will resign his legislative position as promised...
and
2. He's a Reublican, so yes, it doesn't matter what party you're in in SD as long as you're a Repub.
By the way, it's ok if you don't agree with me about legislators not representing their constituents.
Because you're right. This current extremist bunch has their own agenda, and don't give a hoot what the people back home want.
That's why they so smugly pass laws that violate their voters' constitutional rights and have to get smacked down for it via referendum.
I say throw the bums out.
What do you say?
Both Hanks and Kooiker are or have been advertisers.
While that was going on, Lou Sebert was serving as both mayor of Mitchell and as state representative, but PP was unconcerned because Sebert is republican (elected the same time Haley was elected). Sebert did not resign - holding both positions for a good 6 months.
Now, PP makes no assertion whatsoever that Hanks absolutely can't serve both as mayor and rep. PP only argues that Hanks made a promise.
Does your own double standard ever bother you PP?
bottom line; both would make good mayors or legislators. Sam can only be a mayor, Alan can do either one. Logic says; Alan to Pierre, Sam to mayor.
aint happening, but regardless of who it is, we the voters wont be doing it!!
you are wrong. Kooiker has the support of a lot of democrats. you will find no other candidate in city history who has the support of napoli and frankenfeld.
Check your facts. Kooiker is an ultra-right
wing extremist. (...not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that those people belong on the sidelines, not in leaderhp positions.)
yes, Kooiker advertises here, but hey, candidates advertise in the media all the time (some candidates, and the Argus excepted).
But PP's issue is that Hanks told him he'd divulge any Stan contributions. To PP. First, if I recall correctly.
Hanks didn't divulge to PP at all, hence his understandable ire at being taken for less than a full blown media outlet, or even for being in individual with a website that got lied to.
Hanks: lied to PP
Kooiker: advertises here, yes, but did not lie to PP
back up your claim on Kooiker being a right wing extremist. He disagreed with the GOP on the food tax and led the effort against it. Not sure what other partisan issues he has voted on, but your statement is a bold one and I look forward to seeing the evidence.
Answer:
the voters for mayor
then
Rounds if Hank's is elected.
sorry for that one
- Hanks lied to PP.
- Hanks looked lots less pretentious without the beard.
Hanks has ridden the TIF pony for all its worth - but - he has not said publicly if he supports or opposes a TIF for wal-mart.
Since I see Hanks signs on Hamilton properties, it would be nice to hear where Hanks stands on a TIF for wal-mart
thanks for the clarification, then I am really baffled about his signs on Hamilton property. Maybe he is moving on without a TIF for wal-mart?
When will you stop?