logo
Lawmakers say GOP divide led to cooperation among Democrats and some Republicans on key issues

Lawmakers say GOP divide led to cooperation among Democrats and some Republicans on key issues

Yahoo29-03-2025

A panel of South Dakota legislators participates in the Chiesman Center for Democracy annual conference at the University of South Dakota on March 27, 2025. From left are Rep. Chris Kassin, R-Vermillion; Rep. Erik Muckey, D-Sioux Falls; Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank; Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls; Rep. Drew Peterson, R-Salem; and Sen. Jamie Smith, D-Sioux Falls, (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
VERMILLION — Six South Dakota lawmakers — three Democrats and three Republicans — celebrated bipartisan accomplishments Thursday at an annual democracy conference, including their efforts to stop what one legislator called an influx of 'bad bills' from reaching the governor's desk.
Fourteen incumbent Republican lawmakers lost in the 2024 primaries, with many challengers capitalizing on opposition to Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline project. That produced a large class of freshman Republican legislators, and last year's Republican leadership group lost support, resulting in a new leadership team when the Legislature convened in January.
Sen. Jamie Smith, D-Sioux Falls, said those changes produced bills that pitted Republicans against each other, leading Democrats and some Republicans to work together against legislation they both opposed. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Legislature 96-9.
'Unfortunately this year, a lot of times it was killing bad bills that we were the most successful,' Smith said.
Rep. Drew Peterson, R-Salem, said he ran for a caucus leadership position ahead of the session but 'lost by a few.' He said some Republicans who failed to gain a leadership post worked with Democrats on some issues.
'I wasn't in leadership this year, but we still lead within our group,' Peterson said. 'Collectively we could get 36 to 42 votes between the Democrats and Republicans, and we did our job.'
Peterson and Smith were among the lawmakers who participated in a legislative panel discussion at the annual conference hosted by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota.
As evidence of bipartisan efforts between Democrats and some Republicans, the lawmakers highlighted the amending of legislation dubbed the 'locking up librarians' bill, by removing a proposed criminal penalty for distributing harmful or obscene material to minors and instead requiring an appeals process for challenging materials in school and public libraries. The amendment passed the Senate 18-16 before the bill passed the chamber 32-2. The House accepted the amendments in a 36-34 vote, and Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the bill this month.
Attempt to revive 'locking up librarians' bill fails; version with appeal process goes to governor
There was also bipartisan cooperation against a failed attempt to stop funding the state's controversial Future Fund, which is an economic development fund controlled by the executive branch, and several failed bills intended to provide property tax relief to South Dakotans.
Sioux Falls Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey said he most clearly saw the shift within the Republican Party in the Future Fund debate, where he said some Republicans reacted to a lack of oversight for the fund by supporting its elimination without 'actually digging into' how it works.
'We're trying to take down an agency, effectively,' Muckey said, 'but we don't actually know what the agency does, the process to get there or what the consequences of a bill is that we didn't even all probably read, frankly.'
Rep. Chris Kassin, R-Vermillion, said the push for property tax relief included a determination by some freshmen lawmakers to pass property tax cuts without considering costs. That's primarily because some lawmakers, he said, were quick to 'slam something through' and slow to research and understand a bill's consequences.
The Legislature ultimately passed Rhoden's legislation including a temporary cap on countywide assessment increases, with plans to dig into the property tax system further with a summer task force.
Other notable efforts that some Republicans and Democrats worked together on failed, such as funding the replacement of the state penitentiary.
The Legislature lost leadership with deep institutional knowledge because of the primary defeats, said Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, leading to less understanding among lawmakers of the process and why bills failed in past sessions.
Davis said some bills saw several layers of amendments, which hinders how lawmakers and the public vet bills in the committee process.
'That's a drain on the process and the system,' she said.
One of the new legislative leaders, House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish, told South Dakota Searchlight by phone that he saw factions of Republicans working with Democrats during the session. He described the comments made during the panel as part of an attempt to frame the session as 'fraught and chaotic.'
The bills highlighted by lawmakers during the panel weren't bad, he said, but were emblematic of the divide within the Republican Party. The Future Fund and property tax discussions, he said, showed the divide is centered on government involvement in economic development and government spending.
'What some people call bad, others call conservative,' Odenbach said.
Odenbach said the next session will be different as freshman lawmakers have a year under their belts and a better understanding of the legislative process. The divide, he said, will remain.
'The South Dakota Republican Party is changing,' Odenbach said. 'It's going back to its roots and we're going to redefine what it means to be a conservative. It'll take a few twists and turns until we get there.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Alvin Bragg, Manhattan prosecutor who took on Trump, wins Democratic primary in bid for second term
Alvin Bragg, Manhattan prosecutor who took on Trump, wins Democratic primary in bid for second term

Hamilton Spectator

time15 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Alvin Bragg, Manhattan prosecutor who took on Trump, wins Democratic primary in bid for second term

NEW YORK (AP) — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor who oversaw the historic hush-money case against President Donald Trump, won Tuesday's Democratic primary as he seeks reelection. Bragg defeated Patrick Timmins — a litigator, law professor and former Bronx assistant district attorney — to advance to November's general election. About 70% of registered Manhattan voters are Democrats. The first-term incumbent will face Republican Maud Maron, who was a public defender for decades and previously ran for Congress and NYC's City Council as a Democrat. Bragg has long been one of the nation's most prominent prosecutors, spotlighted in TV's 'Law & Order' and other shows. The DA directs about 600 attorneys in one of the biggest local prosecutors' offices in the U.S. He raised the office's profile still further by bringing the hush-money case. His predecessor, fellow Democrat Cyrus R. Vance Jr., spent years investigating various Trump dealings but didn't procure an indictment . Bragg decided to focus on how and why porn actor Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 to clam up about her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with the married Trump. The payment was made, through the then-candidate's personal attorney, weeks before the 2016 presidential election. Trump's company records logged the money as a legal expense. Trump denied any wrongdoing and any sexual involvement with Daniels. But a jury last year found him guilty of 33 felony counts of falsifying business records, the first-ever felony conviction of a former — and now again — U.S. commander in chief. Trump is appealing the verdict. The Republican president has long derided the case as a political 'witch hunt,' and he has kept lambasting Bragg by social media as recently as March. Bragg, 51, was a civil rights lawyer, federal prosecutor and top deputy to New York's attorney general before becoming DA. Raised in Harlem and educated at Harvard, he's the first Black person to hold the post. His tenure had a rocky start. Days after taking office in 2022, he issued a memo telling staffers not to prosecute some types of cases, nor seek bail or prison time in some others. After criticism from the police commissioner and others, Bragg apologized for creating 'confusion' and said his office wasn't easing up on serious cases. The matter continued to animate his critics. Trump repeatedly branded Bragg 'soft on crime,' and Timmins said on his campaign site homepage that the memo 'has brought about increased crime and a perception of chaos in the subway and on our streets.' Timmins — who has raised about $154,000 to Bragg's $2.2 million since January 2022 — also pledged to do more to staunch subway crime, keep cases from getting dismissed for failure to meet legal deadlines, and prioritize hate crimes, among other things. Bragg's campaign emphasized his efforts to fight gun violence, help sexual assault survivors, prosecute hate crimes and go after bad landlords and exploitative bosses, among other priorities. His office, meanwhile, has been enmeshed in a string of high-profile cases in recent months. The office is using a post-9/11 terrorism law to prosecute UnitedHealthcare CEO killing suspect Luigi Mangione , lost a homicide trial against Marine veteran and Republican cause célèbre Daniel Penny in a case that stirred debate about subway safety and self-defense, and retried former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein on sex crimes charges. Mangione, Penny and Weinstein all pleaded not guilty. Bragg unexpectedly inherited the Vance-era Weinstein case after an appeals court ordered a new trial. In a jumbled outcome, jurors this month convicted Weinstein on one top charge, acquitted him of another and didn't reach a verdict on a third, lower-level charge — which Bragg aims to bring to trial a third time. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Dems struggle to respond as Trump's Iran strikes sow chaos
Dems struggle to respond as Trump's Iran strikes sow chaos

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Dems struggle to respond as Trump's Iran strikes sow chaos

Democrats are scrambling to respond to President Donald Trump's unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It's another high-stakes move by the president that could present a major political opening — but the party has, so far, appeared fractured in its public messaging. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quickly called for Trump to be impeached, but most House Democrats on Tuesday voted down Rep. Al Green's (D-Texas) resolution to do so. Other Democrats have supported Trump's strike, including Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who said the president was 'right' to bomb Iran. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin posted 'no new wars' on X, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vented that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorization.' It's the kind of disjointed and, at times, contradictory message that's become emblematic of the Democratic Party that's been locked out of power in Washington, cut out of the loop, and left without clear party leadership during Trump's second term. Where Democrats were once reflexively #Resistance-driven during the president's first term, giving them clear anti-Trump positions on much of what he did, they're now more nuanced, sometimes circumspect, on Trump's controversial moves on trade, immigration and now, foreign policy. Democrats often unify on arguments about process and rules, including on the Iranian strikes, when they've primarily attacked Trump for failing to seek congressional approval. Multiple War Powers Resolutions — which would prevent Trump from further engaging in hostilities against Iran without congressional approval — are in the works. But that response, so far, is 'a classic Democratic messaging problem,' said Morgan Jackson, a top Democratic strategist based in North Carolina, who said that Democrats 'should be making two points, clearly and consistently that's broadly adopted: Trump is dragging us into a war, which he said he'd never do, and he's making Americans less safe.' 'When we debate the process, war powers vote, impeaching him because he didn't ask Congress — voters don't care about that,' Jackson added. 'When we have a message about process versus a president who took action, [then] that's a losing message.' Or as a Democratic consultant said when granted anonymity to speak frankly about the party: 'Our response is to push our glasses up our nose and complain about the illegality of it? Come on. We can't just bitch about the process.' Democrats' jumbled answer to the United States' strikes in Iran, so far, is also the product of a specific challenge, several House Democrats said: They're operating without much information. The Trump administration postponed a closed-door congressional briefing on the Iran strikes Tuesday afternoon, drawing the ire of Democrats who questioned whether the administration was trying to obfuscate its intelligence, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said he first heard about the attack on social media. 'There's no official party line' because 'you need the facts,' said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.). That's left Trump and Republicans to dominate the public messaging around a rapidly changing situation. After Trump signed off on a trio of bombings on Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday, he claimed the strikes 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear capabilities, but his own military leaders walked back that assessment. Trump floated the possibility of regime change in Iran, then backtracked by Tuesday, telling reporters he wants 'to see everything calm down as quickly as possible.' The president helped to broker a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, but it's already been tested and it's unclear how long it may hold. That constant uncertainty is at the core of Democrats' defense for their constitutionality argument. Himes, who has introduced one of the War Powers Resolution measures, warned that he 'would be willing to bet my next paycheck that a ceasefire is not likely to remain in effect for very long,' so 'I think the Constitution to which we all theoretically subscribe should be enforced.' House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said it was 'completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on this in a timely fashion,' adding that 'launching an attack without congressional authorization is wrong' and 'launching a potentially unsuccessful attack without congressional authorization would be an administration-defining failure.' Potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders, from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to former Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have largely focused their responses to the Iranian strikes on public safety and concern for military personnel. Otherwise, they've largely stayed quiet. 'Our challenge is, yes, we have no clear leader but, just as important, everyone is still trying to figure out what's going on,' said a Democratic operative who is advising a potential 2028 candidate and was granted anonymity to describe private conversations. 'Donald Trump sows so much chaos and confusion into the process that Democrats can sometimes get distracted and respond to all of it, rather than having a coherent overall message.' The muddled Democratic message on the Iran strikes is particularly notable because there is a clear political opening. A majority of Americans disapprove of the president's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, while six in 10 said the strikes will increase the Iranian threat to the United States, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday. The DNC has urged Democrats to capitalize on that opening, even if it's not yet the loudest message emanating from their own party. A messaging guidance memo from the DNC, and obtained by POLITICO, described Trump's actions as 'unconstitutional, dangerous and hypocritical.' Of the six messaging points detailed as pushback to it, only the last one focused on process, arguing that Trump 'must bring his case before Congress immediately.' The other five ticked through safety, broken campaign promises and lack of public support for the strikes. Republicans have also been divided on Trump's actions, with some explicitly urging Trump not get involved further in the conflict. Trump ally Steve Bannon cautioned against the United States pushing for regime change in Iran, warning it could lead to more American military involvement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) had initially joined Democrats in pushing for a measure to block American involvement, but he said he wouldn't back it if the ceasefire between Israel and Iran held. It's frustrated some Democrats who wish the party would take better control of the moment, but Pete Giangreco, a longtime Democratic consultant, said Democrats might end up benefiting politically regardless of their current messaging. 'We're a party without a head. We don't have a Speaker, we don't have a nominee for president yet, so we have this cacophony of voices in these moments. … But that matters less here because we just need to get out of the way because the story here is MAGA is at war with MAGA,' Giangreco said. 'Donald Trump did something that only 17 percent of Americans agree with, so the Democratic response, even if it is messy, doesn't matter this time.'

California's signature climate policies face a new foe: Democrats
California's signature climate policies face a new foe: Democrats

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

California's signature climate policies face a new foe: Democrats

SACRAMENTO, California — President Donald Trump is threatening California's marquee carbon-trading program. But it's in-state Democrats who are taking aim at the state's other emissions market for transportation fuels. Credit prices in California's low-carbon fuels market dropped $4 per ton Tuesday morning on the recognition of a credible threat in SB 237, a bill introduced overnight that would cap prices instead of letting them rise as planned in service of encouraging refiners to sell more biofuels, electricity and other non-fossil fuels. This isn't some potshot from marginalized Republicans — it's a bill from seven Democratic senators during the thick of the state's legislative session, blessed by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire. 'This critical legislation will reduce costs for drivers across the Golden State while continuing to move our climate and energy goals full steam ahead,' McGuire said in a statement. And it's not all moderate Democrats, either — besides Sens. Tim Grayson, Anna Caballero and Melissa Hurtado, Sen. Jesse Arreguín, a former Berkeley mayor, is signed on, as is Sen. Jerry McNerney, a freshman and eight-term U.S. House member who was known for being Congress' 'science guy.' The bill is a grab bag of measures to address gas prices, along the lines of another sprawling affordability bill this session, Sen. Josh Becker's SB 254. In addition to capping credit prices at roughly $75 per ton, with increases pegged to inflation, it would also push state officials to ditch California's unique, lower-emission gasoline blend in favor of a broader, West-wide standard. It would also offer refiners a 'one-stop shop' for environmental permitting and impose more state oversight of any future rules that affect retail fuel prices. It's already triggering some odd-bedfellows alliances. The petroleum industry's main trade group, the Western States Petroleum Association, supports it — but so do environmental justice advocates who have long opposed the fuel market's incentives for dairy farms that capture their methane emissions and sell it for electricity. So does at least one sitting member of the state agency that put the policy in place. 'This isn't a surrender,' said Dean Florez, a member of the California Air Resources Board and a former state lawmaker from Bakersfield. 'It's a reality check. When credit prices spike so high they quietly tack 85 cents onto a gallon of gas, people stop believing that the green future includes them.' But other environmentalists are concerned about losing another climate policy in the state's toolbox, right after Trump revoked the state's permission to enforce its nation-leading electric vehicle targets. 'Why would we handcuff ourselves by not using a key policy to address transportation, the single largest emitting sector in California?' asked Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California director for the Environmental Defense Fund. For Gov. Gavin Newsom — who's beat up on oil companies but then instructed his California Energy Commission to try to keep refiners from leaving after two of them subsequently announced departure plans — the bill could cut both ways. (Newsom's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.) It puts a spotlight on the state's perpetually high gas prices and reopens a wound from last year, when lawmakers hit CARB over its admission and subsequent walkback of its estimate that the program could raise gas prices by 47 cents per gallon. But it could also help close another wound from last year, when neighboring governors whose states depend on California gas publicly complained about Newsom's bill to have refiners keep more supplies on hand in the event of outages. There's surprisingly wide agreement that California's custom blend of gasoline, formulated to reduce smog in the summer, might not need to be so uniquely tailored. Dan Sperling, a former CARB board member and director of the University of California, Davis' Institute for Transportation Studies, said broadening the market to align with the fuel used in other Western states would bring down prices and reduce the impact of refinery closures, while having minimal impacts on emissions. 'If you can make some minor modifications and open up the market to more refiners outside California, then the concern about refiners leaving goes away,' he said. Grayson acknowledged things could change. 'Details of the policy are up for negotiation, but I will be fighting to ensure that we get needed change for Californians who are fed up with our fuel economy,' he said in a statement. But the mere fact of the bill is already juicing conversations about how it could interact with the ongoing negotiations to reauthorize the state's other carbon price, its cap-and-trade program. Environmental justice advocates are hoping it will count as a win for industry and moderate Democrats so they'll soften their opposition to proposed cap-and-trade changes like eliminating offsets. 'It's not really benefiting us and it is costing us, and we'd rather see that [price] go down than cap and trade go down,' said Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for environmental justice groups. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store