We’re two steps toward the Rick Weiland trifecta!
Yesterday Secretary of State Shantel Krebs certified the Anti-Corruption Act initiative petition. Secretary Krebs calculates that 18,122 out of 24,532 submitted signatures were valid. That’s an error rate of 26.13% for the Anti-Corruption Act’s mostly paid circulators, better than the worse-than-one-in-three failure rate of the mercenary circulators of the Glodt Amendment and the fake 18% usury amendment but still nearly double the error rate of the high-quality work done by largely volunteer circulators of the real 36% rate cap.
The Anti-Corruption Act will appear on our 2016 statewide ballot as Initiated Measure 22. Why should we do 22? Let’s hear from two notable Republicans spearheading the campaign for IM 22 alongside Weiland:
“This initiative cracks down on the ability of big money interests to buy influence in government and rig the rules,” said Don Frankenfeld, co-chair of South Dakotans for Ethics Reform and a former South Dakota State Senator based in Rapid City. “This law would dramatically improve transparency and accountability.”
…The Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act would ensure disclosure of who’s spending money on politics and elections and how it’s influencing our representatives,” said Dave Volk, a former South Dakota State Treasurer based in Sioux Falls who supports the Act. “Democracy works better when voters are well-informed” [South Dakotans for Ethics Reform, press release, 2016.01.06].
IM 22 joins Amendment T, the proposal to create an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering in South Dakota, as the second of three big reform measures that Rick Weiland and his TakeItBack.org are hoping to put to a vote this year. The third measure is the proposed constitutional amendment to create open non-partisan primaries. If Weiland’s circulators produced the same error rate on the non-partisan primaries measure as on the Anti-Corruption Act, their petition will qualify for the ballot as Amendment V.
22, T, and V would work together to reform politics in South Dakota. 22 would do what Frankenfeld and Volk say, reduce the influence of big money in Pierre politics and give voters more information, not to mention a statewide ethics commission to go after corruption in campaign finance and state government. T would take politics out of drawing our legislative boundaries, thus making elections more fair and representation more democratic (if not more Demcoratic—keep your fingers crossed!). V, if it makes the ballot, will give more voters a chance to participate in electing their leaders. All of those steps are good for democracy and checking the corruption that has arisen from our too-long-standing one-party regime.
Having all three of these measures on the ballot will also give every legislative candidate an entire canned speech for their campaigns. Legislative candidates, you really don’t need to come up with policy initiatives of your own to discuss on your various campaign trials. If you spend the next ten months talking about nothing but IM 22, Amendment T, and Amendment V and how important those measures are for democracy and urging voters and your opponents to support them, you will have done the public a great service. Change up that speech with points on Referred Laws 19 and 20 (on which you should exhort your constituents to vote NO!) and the rate caps (36% Yes, 18% No! IM 21 Yes, Amendment U for Usury NO!), and you have all the campaign messaging you need.
Team Krebs continues to certify petitions like clockwork. My projections from her work rate on the first couple petitions have exactly matched the days she has certified the last three petitions. If my projections hold, Krebs should rule on the non-partisan primary petition by Monday, January 11; the fair-share union dues petition by Thursday, January 14; and the medical marijuana petition by Friday, January 15.