Rep. Haugaard Confuses IM 22 and Amendment V

I’m having lots of fun reading that Sioux Falls paper’s extensive compilation of bios and statements from 68 Legislative candidates in 14 southeast South Dakota districts. Among responses to Joe Sneve’s question about ballot measures, Rep. Steve Haugaard (R-10/Sioux Falls) shows that even elected officials may need a copy of my cheat sheet to keep the ballot measures straight:

Rep. Steven Haugaard (R-10/Sioux Falls)
Rep. Steven Haugaard (R-10/Sioux Falls)

…if I must choose one as more important than the others, then I would focus on Initiated Measure 22. IM22 is a stealth measure to conceal political affiliations. You are known by the company you keep and often times the political label is all the voter has to go on. Also, IM22 would use taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns, however, there is not enough money in the measure to accomplish the claimed goal… [Rep. Steven Haugaard, in Joe Sneve, “Meet the Candidates: District 10,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.10.27].

Pssst! Steve! IM 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, does a lot (like, indeed, appropriating taxpayer dollars for individual South Dakota voters to choose, if they see fit, to donate to candidates who agree to obey even stricter campaign finance restrictions), but it doesn’t take party labels off the ballot. That’s Amendment V, the open non-partisan primary proposal. Go ahead and argue against IM 22, but misinform the voters about what IM 22 does.


3 Responses to Rep. Haugaard Confuses IM 22 and Amendment V

  1. With 10 ballot measures I would cut the guy some slack about remembering them by number or letter. He’s not blogging this stuff daily like you are.

  2. We sure are having to cut Republican legislators a lot of slack lately. ;-)

  3. Darin Larson

    After this year’s teacher pay debate, including Haugaard claiming that Sioux Falls teachers were paid the national average which was false, and his vote against increasing teacher pay, I don’t think any slack should be given. He is the type that grants no quarter, thus none should be given him.

    If I remember correctly, Haugaard gave one of the most contemptible speeches I have ever heard by a SD legislator–was it on the potty bill?