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.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is something I hadn't thought of. Thanks to you, I now know for certain that Sam is the man. Although Alan is a likable fella, he has too many shady things in his background and we've learned the hard way not to trust Rounds. My vote goes to Sam.
Anonymous said…
If Alan didn't have to resign doesn't a "conflict of interest" come to play here?
He would be voting on issues pertaining to Rapid in the legislature.

Just a thought.
Anonymous said…
Every legislator votes on issues pertaining to their home town, 10:41. That's why we send them to Pierre, right?
Anonymous said…
Sam and Alan both do a good job. Lets keep Sam in Rapid and Alan in Pierre. Why should we risk loosing a good legislator?
Anonymous said…
Pretty slanted story, pp...

You're acting a little Argus-ish.
Anonymous said…
Good idea 11:49. I also think we should keep Sam in Rapid City where he has been very effective in city government.

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!!!
Anonymous said…
11:49 To get a good mayor. The city needs Sam AND Alan, working together. Alan is the most moderate, Sam the most conservative.

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.
Anonymous said…
Sorry 12:13, we can't elect two guys to be mayor. Leave Alan where he is and let Sam stay in Rapid as mayor. The chances that Adelstein would be the one to fill Alan's spot in Pierre are too great and that would NOT be good for Rapid City or South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
12:57, Maybe you missed my point. Let me be more clear then. Sam's not the best guy to be mayor. He's better on the council as a watchdog. This is, in fact, how he describes himself — and I agree with him. People who don't believe in government should not run government. Our current President is a case in point. Sam works best on the edges, keeping everyone honest and towing the line, nipping at the heels of those who would rig the system. If he has to move to the middle, his effectiveness is compromised, and he becomes part of the problem. That's all I'm sayin'.
Anonymous said…
12:01 -- But, unlike the Argus, PP does not pretend to be unbiased.

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.
Anonymous said…
PP has a big bias in this race. Everytime there's a story about Hanks, he is critical. Everytime there is a story about Kooiker, he defends him.

Glad PP isn't a real journalist.
Anonymous said…
11:01 i think it is somehow different being a mayor and a legislator at the same time.
I don't think i agree with that for lots of reasons.
Think about it and it doesn't matter what party you are.
Anonymous said…
2:27 Well first of all, your point is moot for 2 reasons.

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?
PP said…
2:25 - I support the Republican in the race (of which there are two), but when I'm lied to, I don't try to sugarcoat it.

Both Hanks and Kooiker are or have been advertisers.
Anonymous said…
PP likes Sam because Sam is a Napoli, Schweizow, Krause, Hunt and Unruh clone. Sam is not a team player, he is a radical idealist. Good to have on the sidelines, but lousy as the man in charge.
Anonymous said…
Funny how PP took after Pat Haley when he got elected to the city council in Huron and PP jumped up and down saying Haley couldn't be in the legislature at the same time because he's a democrat. Haley did resign his house seat.

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?
Anonymous said…
12:13,,If we elect Hanks, somebody else, that I dont trust(Rounds), gets to pick who goes to Pierre. It is harder to find good people that can leave their jobs for 2+ months a year to be a legislator, than to be a mayor. Alan can do that, Sam cant.

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.
Anonymous said…
No. Logic says: Alan Mayor, Sam city council watchdog, Mike Wilson, or Pam Hemmingson, legislature. Win. Win. Win.
Anonymous said…
4:51 pm

aint happening, but regardless of who it is, we the voters wont be doing it!!
Anonymous said…
5:29 ...of course not, it makes too much sense.
Anonymous said…
Anon 3:06.
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.
Anonymous said…
5:39 Pure, unadulterated baloney.
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.)
Anonymous said…
Leave PP alone on the Kooiker/Hanks support issue.

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
John G said…
anon 5:57
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.
Anonymous said…
Okay the question was "Who decides?"

Answer:

the voters for mayor
then
Rounds if Hank's is elected.
Anonymous said…
opps if he resignes his seat
sorry for that one
Anonymous said…
If this was a district 07 instead of district 32 issue, *I* know it would be PP sent in there to clean up after Hanks' campground mess.
Anonymous said…
The facts are indisputable:

- Hanks lied to PP.
- Hanks looked lots less pretentious without the beard.
Anonymous said…
Kooiker has opposed a TIF for wal-mart publicly - hence the great opposition from Hamilton.

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
Anonymous said…
6:56 Oh come on, he's the fair haired boy of Napoli, Schweizow, Krause et al. It's common knowledge. Ask anybody.
Anonymous said…
Thats right, everybody loves him.
Anonymous said…
8:55 Hanks opposed the Walmart TIF in his campaign literature and in his speeches. You must have missed it. Next time you see him, ask him.
Anonymous said…
6:49,

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?
Anonymous said…
RE: 8:45 -- The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If neither candidate supports a TIF for Wal-Mart, then Hamilton's choice is to go with whomever he feels is strongest for Rapid City, or the one who isn't a habitual liar. Either way, he should support Hanks. Anyone supported by Napoli, Kriebel, Schwiesow, etc. is dangerous in a strong position. Remember, Napoli even discussed running against Rounds for governor last year. Republicans should have a watchful eye on this crew.
Anonymous said…
If Hamilton is supporting Hanks, that is BIG news. Quite a large piece of HUMBLE PIE for Hamilton to eat. Joining with Adelstein to support a candidate, how humiliating. Way to go Schumacher, be sure and add this election to your resume when you go begging for your next job in politics. OOps, sorry, I forgot this was most likely your last job.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:29 AKA Mike
When will you stop?

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