The headline on Dan Peters’s interview with Senator R. Blake Curd (R-12/Sioux Falls) is that the Majority Leader wants to delay the implementation date of voter-approved ballot measures from mid-November, the week after the election, to July 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year.
It gives the folks that have to abide by the law time to adjust and understand what it means. It also affords the Legislature the ability to potentially adjust it before they actually carry the weight and force of law [Senator R. Blake Curd, in Dan Peters, “Legislator Lobbies for More Time to Put Laws into Practice,” KSOO, 2017.01.11].
The understory, possibly more important for those of us on alert to protect our initiative and referendum rights, is that Senator Curd, in Peters’s words, “exercises caution against the notion of raising the standard for getting items on the ballot.”
When Senator Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton) and his fellow elitists file their bills to hamstring our ability to petition for a public vote on various laws, perhaps we can turn first to Majority Leader Curd and ask him to exercise his caution in favor of direct democracy.
Good grief. The public can understand these measures just fine. It’s only dummies like Curd who can’t seem to wrap their minds around them. Really, these guys are so corrupt. They used the same excuse for making the initiative process more complicated than it needs to be.
Interesting, and somewhat unexpected, that Curd ““exercises caution against the notion of raising the standard for getting items on the ballot.” Maybe this is the first crack in the armor of those who would, essentially, all but take away the right of citizens to initiate and refer laws. Corey Brown has all set to do it two years ago, but turned tail and withdrew his bill when faced with outrage from the public. The fact is, voters like having the option to initiate and refer laws and amendments, and if individual legislators want to mess with that, they very likely will pay a price for it–as they should.
I’ll take all support, unexpected and otherwise, on this issue. That support does not necessarily compel us to compromise on the enactment date. I’ll take Donald’s position: we understand what’s on the ballot before us. We have plenty of time to analyze its meaning and requirements. Chuck Brennan had plenty of time to prepare his employees before the election for the liquidation he intended to undertake (he even could have publicized it as a campaign tool). The Attorney General could have prepared orders for printing of victims rights cards and opinions on releasing crime info to the media.
That gets me thinking about all of this year’s measures:
R, vo-tech governance, required no lead-in time.
S, victims rights, again, Jackley and police and others could have gotten ready.
T, independent redistricting commission, set a clear schedule of operation. No need to delay until July 1.
U, fake usury measure, would simply have locked in current business practices, required no lead-in time.
V, non-partisan primaries, didn’t require paperwork until next election.
21, 36% rate cap, as mentioned above and as we’ve seen, was entirely doable… and why give an exploitative, socially harmful industry seven more months to exploit? Why not shut them down immediately after the people’s vote?
22, Anti-Corruption Act—legislators changed behavior immediately. Sponsors sensibly wrote in a later enactment date for certain key provisions.
23, fair-share union dues, would have been as simple to enact as the 36% rate cap.
19, Incumbent Protection Act, would have sucked, but again, it wouldn’t have had practical effect until next election.
20, youth minimum wage—I’ll bet interested employers would have had no problem cutting their kids’ pay one week after the vote.
So really, there’s no problem here. Bill sponsors and LRC can work together on drafting.
And hey, if legislators can enact emergency legislation within days of publication, why can’t voters enact “emergency” initiatives that have seen the light of day for at least 13 months?
A bit longer of a delay, to January 1, is a reasonable compromise. July 1 is just nonsense, and a transparent attempt to gut the initiative process. They’ve done everything they can with all the upfront nonsense to make the initiative process more cumbersome. It’s just sickening that this man can’t accept the will of the public, unless it somehow feathers his nest. Sad.
CH,
Not expecting anyone is going to have sympathy for state employees, I’m going to give a perspective from those who have to implement new laws (legislative or IM’s).
Let me just touch the first one. I was for changing governance of the Vo-Tech Schools but I was shocked it took effect immediately. Running the Vo-Techs isn’t a small matter. They were in the middle of a fiscal year, there was an established chain of command, that chain of command understood the background for the decisions being executed/implemented, there was no authority for putting a chain of command in place prior to passage, and two weeks after the law passed the governance authority passed. This is not good governance and we all should be for good governance.
I’ve had the honor of implementing new laws and I can assure you it took every day available and many late nights for virtually months to get it done by July 1. With very few exceptions, new laws require state employees to implement them and good governance demands we be cognizant of that keeping in mind none of those state employees don’t have other responsibilities. Unlike legislation which often has input from those who will have to implement (and can impact how implementation is written into the bill) and have knowledge it will be signed by their boss, IM’s get dropped on them in that they have no advance warning (or authority to begin implementation plans) until election day.
Unless we have a over-riding provision for Executive Office discretion on implementation on all IM’s based on what is reasonable, we need a timeframe sufficiently long to catch what is reasonable on most potential new laws. Since we have operated with 120 days between end of the session and July 1, I think that should be the minimum timeframe.
Troy,
I have sympathy for state employees, but every initiative now has almost one year of lead time. That’s way out of wack from
bills. The time between bill passage and July 1 is NOT for rulemaking. It is to allow time for referendum. In states without referendum bills go into effect almost immediately. In Wisconsin Republicans recently shortened the period from twenty days to two. Rulemaking, if required, gets one after laws become effective. Sorry, there is absolutely no need for Curd’s bill.
Don,
I’m not even referencing “rule-making”, I’m just talking about getting things in order in order to operate under the law. Think about my example of changing the governing authority for the Tech Schools, a change which I think is long over-due.
We moved it from the School Boards to an entity that had no members and no staff and no preparation to prepare to govern. I think that is bad governance. Vo-Tech’s deserved better. I think I could easily make the same case with regard to Marsy’s Law (I opposed this).
Yes, there are some IM’s that can go into effect immediately. And, there are probably some in which 120 days is logistically difficult like maybe Marsy’s Law. We need to have a period which is reasonable for the vast majority and deal with the inconvenience with the others.
Troy,
The tech school change had been discussed for years. If the Legislature couldn’t effectively plan for this, don’t take it out on citizens who bring initiatives.
Don, I don’t think I’m “taking anything out on citizens” to have a reasonable time between passage and its effective date to allow the people who have to implement and/or live under the change have some time to properly and efficiently do so.
My example of the tech schools was bad in one respect. It was drafted by the Legislature and they provided in the Referendum an orderly transfer of governance. But, I think that makes my point. I don’t expect citizen initiated measures to contemplate all of the implementation challenges so we should just have a reasonable time whereby those who have to implement the IM can do so in an orderly manner. I’m hard pressed to think 120 days is excessive.
I’m with Donald—enact the initiatives before the Legislature convenes. Delaying to July 1 is part of the GOP power grab.
Troy, remember, Amendment R didn’t change the governance of the vo-techs. R only brought the constitution into compliance with current practice. It gave the Legislature authority to change the governance, but that can’t happen until the Legislature meets. The legislators who put R on the ballot probably had a plan in the chute, as Don says, years ago. I’m surprised that bill hasn’t already appeared in the hopper.
Troy, should your concern for state employees and others who have to adjust to new laws also preclude the Legislature’s enactment of “emergency” measures?
I think if there is some problem it is one of governmental inefficiency. Better fix that before you go futzing with the initiatives again. Other states have no problem putting laws into effect just days after Legislative passage or passage through a ballot measure.
The Republicans needlessly front-ended complicated bureaucratic steps for initiatives, because they whined about initiatives not being clear and not having enough time to consider everything they needed to consider. It was an excuse, as we see now with the whining about the same problems. Please, this is just a means to try to grab power from the people.
Cory,
You are correct on Amendment R. Just imagine it as a hypothetical example. :)
While I think the emergency clause is used too much, in my observation, the Legislature has been “courteous” with regard to responding to time to implement.
I’m having trouble grasping the harm in a 120 day delay or how it is a power grab. Sometimes we just have to agree no matter our ideological view we have to want good governance and part of governance is an orderly implementation.
How would a 120-day delay have improved any of the initiatives passed over the last 30 years? Are you saying all those “reforms” in the initiative process Republicans demanded in the 2000s failed? If so, let’s get rid of most of them.
You’re pretty slim on any credible evidence to back up your point about how this ideas promotes “good governance.” I would like you and Curd to provide some real evidence dealing specifically with initiated measures. I have found no studies indicating this to be a problem. You would think if there was a problem, it should be evident in all those states that have nearly instantaneous implementation of laws. The one instance you presented resulted from legislative action, not the initiative process. Your argument fails on lack of any substantiation.
Now, consider the harm. Under the 1984 initiative on nuclear waste dumping, delay most likely would have meant a nuclear dump would have been sited in an area that was littered with bombs and other chemicals from munitions. It would have been a disaster, and a huge, huge waste of state and federal tax dollars to dig up and move the radioactive waste in order to clean up the stuff left over from the Ordnance Depot. The 1990 initiative on solid waste siting would have resulted in a huge national dump being sited, completely contrary to the public’s vote. Is that what you want? See, that’s what many Republicans legislators would have wanted: to ignore the public vote and let the dumpers win.
So, no. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise at January 1. But, as we’ve seen here, Troy and the Republicans will never be satisfied until they have eliminated the referendum and initiative. So, I would take my suggestion for a reasonable delay off the table. Not one more day for corruption.
What is this “hopper” of which you speak, Mr. H? Is there a big bucket of paper bills that people toss their offerings into, or are you co-opting some sort of inside terminology of which only the elite of the legislatures understand?
what the hell–A ‘hopper’ could be “Steve Bannon, Donald’s trump’s brain”. “Darkness is good” says bannon
@33:00 Steve Kornacki interview of Micheal Wolfe, MSNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0t5G7Ha3Qo
Troy, I say power grab because Curd wants the delay so the Legislature can get its hands on the initiative and tinker with it. Some legislators just can’t stand the idea that voters could make something happen without legislators having the final, supreme say-so. The people voters pick for office take power before the Legislature convenes. No branch of government gets to exercise veto power over our choices for Legislature, PUC, Governor, or Congress. Why not treat the voters’ will with the same swift respect on ballot measures?
(Grudz, you can check the hopper at http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/default.aspx?Session=2017 )