Press "Enter" to skip to content

Sioux Empire Podcast: Yes on T and 21, Hard NO on 19 and 20

The Sioux Empire Podcast studies all ten ballot measures and finds just two worth its approval: Amendment T (anti-gerrymandering!) and Initiated Measure 21 (36% cap on payday loans!). The podcast crew share the A.G.’s explanations and Pro/Con statements, then offer the following verdicts:

  • Amendment R (vo-tech governance): “We’re neutral.”
  • Amendment S (Glodt amendment): “Vote no, while this law is well intentioned, it’s unintended consequences could be harmful to South Dakota.”
  • Amendment T (anti-gerrymandering): “We say Vote Yes.  The Sioux Empire Podcast cast operates in District 9.  If you want to see what Gerrymandering looks like, look at District 9, District 10, District 34, and the districts in Brown County (Aberdeen).”
  • Amendment U (fake rate cap): “Run, don’t walk away from this thing.” (See also their August 3, 2015, podcast on the payday lenders’ nefarious petitioning tactics.)
  • Amendment V (open nonpartisan primary): “While we like the IDEA of nonpartisan elections at the state level I don’t like the idea of taking away information from the voters.  We also feel this amendment may have unforeseen consequences beyond its main intent.  So with some hesitation we advise you to vote no on this one.”
  • Initiated Measure 21: “Predatory lending is not good for anyone and if our boy John Oliver is against it, we’re against it.”
  • Initiated Measure 22: “While we like the idea of getting some reforms in place to curb corruption in South Dakota we think this law goes way too far with it’s taxpayer funded campaign system.”
  • Initiated Measure 23: “Something is fishy here and this law is way too vague.  I imagine this one could trigger way too many unforeseen consequences.  It seems like a backdoor way to force people to join a union if they do not want to.”
  • Referred Law 19 (Incumbent Protection Plan): “Screw this law.  Vote No.  It is specifically designed to protect incumbents and make it harder for people to participate in our democracy.  It has no redeeming quality whatsoever.”
  • Referred Law 20 (youth minimum wage): “F— this law. Seriously. What the f— is wrong with the people who dreamed this up.  South Dakota just voted to raise its minimum wage last time around.  Vote NO and send this thing back to the ash heap of history where it belongs.” (I wonder how RL 20 dreamer-upper David Novstrup feels about that assessment.)

Let’s update the South Dakota Blogosphere scorecard:

Issue Dakota Free Press South DaCola SoDak Liberty Bob Newland Sioux Empire Podcast
Amendment R: Regents/vo-tech authority split Yes Yes No No
Amendment S: Glodt’s crime victims bill of rights No No No No No
Amendment T: Independent Redistricting Commission Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Amendment U: Usury! Payday Lender Protection Clause No No No No No
Amendment V: Open Nonpartisan Primary Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Initiated Measure 21: 36% Payday Loan Rate Cap Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Initiated Measure 22: Anti-Corruption Act Yes Yes No No No
Initiated Measure 23: “Fair Share” Union Dues Yes No No No
Referred Law 19: Incumbent Protection Act No No Yes No
Referred Law 20: Youth Minimum Wage Cut No No Yes No No

The Blogosphere remains unanimous in supporting T and opposing S and U. Sioux Empire Podcast stands alone in opposition to V (and even they hesitate in negating). Libertarian SoDakLiberty is the only Nay on the 36% rate cap and the only Yea on cutting kids’ minimum wage, while Libertarian Bob Newland is the only supporter of RL 19’s petition changes. And I’m the only one willing to say Yes on “fair share” union dues.

If you find other complete online voting guides (other than Grudz’s inevitable squawking of “No on Everything” for comic relief), let me know, and maybe our giant table can help us predict the results on November 8!


  1. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24

    It’s like a little voting jingle for the ballot booth ~ { YES on ARE TEE VEE, 21 22 23 } – YES on R,T,V,21,22,23 *thx CraigSk

    “Don’t be crazy … voting NO on Everything is just plain lazy”

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-10-24

    My friend Cathy Brechtelsbauer has suggested NO on “US1920”. She didn’t offer a rationale other than just a quick way to keep the letters and numbers in our heads… but perhaps we can contend that we want to vote NO on measures that would set US back a century? :-)

  3. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24

    Excellent, Ms. Brechtelsbauer ** NO on US1920 ** (not too many people alive that can remember much about that year)

  4. Moses11 2016-10-24

    where is cola on 23

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-10-24

    Cola stayed agnostic on 23 and 19.

  6. grudznick 2016-10-24

    It is a rare day when Mr. Howie, who is usually insaner than most, has a moment of sanity in his bloggings. Today he advocated to “Vote NO on Everything!”

    Just like when Gov. Daugaard and Mr. H are in lockstep on amendment R, when grudznick and Mr. Howie are in lockstep you know it has vast, wide-ranging support.

  7. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24

    VOTE NO on U S 1920 (NO on initiatives – U and S and 1 – 9 – 2 and 0)

  8. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24

    ?? VOTE NO “only” on US1920 (NO on questions U and S and NO on 19 and 20) * that’s U.S.1920 ?? Remember what happened in 1920? The first nat’l election in which women participated. These ballot questions aren’t pro-woman. VOTE NO on US1920.

Comments are closed.