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?
I thought at least some of the new legislation was passed with an emergency clause specifically so it can’t be referred?
True, Michael. We can’t refer HB 1069, the IM22 repealer.
We could take a swing at SB 54, just to block direct contributions from businesses (and, for our conservative friends, labor unions).
At least four of the “replacement” bills are weak but not harmful and thus not worth repealing.
Maybe we need to look at the meager tinkering the Legislature did with ballot measures in general. What about referring SB 59, which delays the enactment of ballot measures until July 1 after the election?
Im specifically interested in the idea of requiring a larger quantum in the legislature in order to override a voter initiative and to use the emergency clause to do so.
A larger “quorum” that is …. I do hate iPhone autocorrect.
Mr. Wyland, even if it cannot be undone with a referral, it could be undone with a measure initiated. BAH! on all measures initiated, a pox on them. They need to be outlawed.
Quantum is a cool autocorrect… but yes, iPhone needs to boost parliamentary language in its spidey sense. :-)
Would two-thirds do it for you on repeal of voter initiatives?
Emergency clause already requires 2/3… should we seek 4/5, or is that an area where we should say that we can only take numerical thresholds so far and must at some point lay the burden on the parties and candidates to win enough seats to keep a fair balance?
Well ND has something similar and I believe it is 3/4. On one hand that seems like a high threshold but on the other hand if they’re going to overrule the voters they should have s good enough reason to get support from 3/4 of the legislature.
As for the balance clearly gerrymandering is still something to be addressed in this state; as we know it is the goal of some legislators to gerrymander a 100% republican legislature.
Cory, I would take a quantum of solace if we referred SB 59.
I think there also needs to be either a court challenge to the unchecked usage of the emergency clause in clearly non-emergency situations or we need a constitutional amendment to specify what constitutes an emergency. The legislature has proven it is untrustworthy with regard to the integrity of the legislative process. Let’s put some teeth in the constitution.
Roxanne is correct. We need to push again to reinitiate non-partisan, non-legislative redistricting. I can’t believe it didn’t pass last time.
We’ll never be represented with the boundaries drawn the way they are now.
Darin, on amending the state constitution, how would you improve on this definition of emergency legislation in Article 3, Section 1: “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions”?
Personally, I think that the only thing that is going to keep IM 22 in the public’s mind through the next election is to begin the process to take this use of this “state of emergency” clause all the way to the US supreme court. The only thing these jerks are going to understand is being hit alongside the head with a hammer and the citizens that constitute the majority in So Dak need to do it.
If there is no useful grounds for going to the US supreme court over this then we need to define through I/R exactly what constitutes a “state of emergency” so the runaway use of it can be stopped.
Considering how little useful work is done by the whole bunch maybe we ought to vote to disband our state house/senate and governor and do all necessary legislation through initiative and referendum! Last year hashed out trans gender bathrooms and this, gun’s and killing measures brought by the people. “Under God the people rule”!!