Press "Enter" to skip to content

Senator Curd Supports Amended SB 59, But Delayed Enactment of Ballot Measures Unnecessary

Senator R. Blake Curd
Senator R. Blake Curd

Senator R. Blake Curd (R-12/Sioux Falls) agrees with me that Senate State Affairs made a good move Friday by striking the constitutionally unworkable Section 2 from Senate Bill 59. Senator Curd tells me he was at the Inauguration Friday listening to President Trump talk about giving power back to the people, but he advised his colleagues to strike that section.

Still, Trump’s people-power exhortations weren’t enough to convince Senator Curd to vote against what’s left of SB 59, which delays the enactment date of measures approved by the voters from November to July 1:

The date change is an operational consideration only-to try and ensure all concerned with these measures have the time and resources to comply-as regular legislatively passed questions do [Senator R. Blake Curd, e-mail to Dakota Free Press, 2017.01.22].

I have replied thus:

I appreciate your attention to Senate Bill 59. Even with Section 2 gone, Section 1, the July 1 enactment provision, is a solution in search of a problem. Approved ballot measures have caused no insurmountable problems for government or business when we have enacted them in November. With measures requiring more implementation time, sponsors have been wise enough to include later enactment dates (like the minimum wage increase, passed in November 2014 but enacted on January 1, 2015).

There are already enough barriers to the people’s exercise of their constitutional right to legislate. Please consider either voting NO on SB 59 or amending it to enact voter-approved measures on January 1 following the election.

SB 59 is not scheduled for floor debate in the Senate. But when it pops up, let’s be conservatives and vote against unnecessary legislation. Short of that, let’s compromise and amend the delay down six months to ensure the swift realization of the people’s will.


  1. Porter Lansing 2017-01-23 08:37

    Why is there not a provision in SB59 that stipulates no changes or challenges will be made against an IM before it becomes law? Over and over the majority claims all they need is time to organize. Put your legislation where your mouths are and stipulate no changes or challenges until implementation.

  2. C Brechtelsbauer 2017-01-23 20:31

    Why not say enact by January 1 at the latest? That allows almost 2 months to initiate court action, which could delay implementation if needed. I’m just wondering if that might be a fair, workable time limit. It worked well for minimum wage.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2017-01-23 21:40

    I agree, CB! January 1 is plenty of time.

    And remember, the Legislature is retaining the power to pass emergency measures that take effect immediately. The people should have that same Legislative power.

  4. C Brechtelsbauer 2017-01-25 06:34

    Thank you, Senator Billie Sutton, for attempting to change the enacting date in Senate bill 59 from July 1 to January 1. SAD TO REPORT, his improvement was not accepted (on party line votes). This is one of a set of bills to take away the power of the people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.