Represent South Dakota is still beating the drum over the Legislature’s arrogant reversal of the voter-approved Initiated Measure 22. The organization assembled a few dozen activists to march in downtown Sioux Falls and Pierre to protest the failure of our elected officials to respect the will of the people. Represent South Dakota co-founder Mark Winegar sends this note about why he’s still in the streets:
A group of thirty concerned citizens gathered together in Sioux Falls on a cold Saturday morning on March 25 to rally for a State Government worthy of their trust. That’s what IM 22 was all about.
We chanted as we walked along Phillips Avenue, “Under God, the People Rule” and chatted with passersby. One women suggested South Dakota is a canary in a mine. This is a place where ideas can be floated to see if they register in a red state.
Legislators in Pierre had a fit about the South Dakota Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act originating in Massachusetts. So did the idea of “no taxation without representation” and independence from Great Britain. Being the canary in the mine can be a good thing.
We are the people of South Dakota and we aren’t going anywhere Mr. Mickelson. We are still waiting for legislation that honors the spirit of IM 22. You can choose to work with us or not. We will be here working toward a government worthy of trust. We were thirty today but there will be more tomorrow [Mark Winegar, letter to the editor, 2017.03.25].
Massachusetts as birthplace of the Tea Party and one of the American Revolution’s best slogans—thanks for that reminder, Mark!
With the Legislature wrapping up its dispiriting 2017 Session with Veto Day today, referendum season begins. Anyone wanting to refer any of the Legislature’s boneheaded bills to a public vote in 2018 can start circulating petitions after Speaker Mickelson and Lt. Governor Michels have both given their gavels the final bang.
Will we see those Represent South Dakota ralliers trading their signs for clipboards and petitions? If so, what 2017 bills are odious enough to warrant the effort of a referendum drive?