Initiated Measure 21 and Amendment U are inextricably linked. After Sioux Falls politicos Steve Hildebrand and Rev. Steve Hickey began circulating the petition for IM 21 to cap payday lending interest rates at 36%, Georgia payday lender Rod Aycox launched the petition for Amendment U to supersede IM 21 with a fake 18% rate cap on oral loan agreements and a constitutional guarantee of unlimited interest rates on written loan agreements.
I thus want to poll these two measures together. Tell me, readers, how you will vote on IM 21 and Amendment U. Here are the four possibilities and their practical impacts:
- Yes on 21, No on U: payday lending interest is capped at 36% APR.
- No on 21, Yes on U: payday lenders continue business as usual; constitution protects unlimited rate caps by forbidding statutory rate caps.
- Yes on 21, Yes on U: U cancels 21, business as usual, unlimited interest.
- No on 21, No on U: business as usual, but Legislature and citizens can propose future statutory rate caps.
Note that Option #3, the Yes-Yes option, is illogical. If you really support the real 36% rate cap, you must couple your Yes on 21 with a No on U. Option #4, No-No, is logical: one can logically oppose the 36% rate cap and oppose the payday lenders’ petition trickery and constitution hijackery.
I’ll take votes through Thursday supper time; then when I get done running around campaigning, we’ll discuss the results.
So vote now, and bring your friends! Let’s hear what you think of payday lending, South Dakota!