Greg Belfrage went to town on Represent South Dakota and their proposed Voter Protection and Anti-Corruption Amendment on his KELO Radio show this morning. Belfrage doesn’t seem to have an argument with the actual content of VPAC—Belfrage doesn’t cite, let alone criticize, any specific provision from the draft amendment. Instead, he focuses his morning criticism on VPAC’s lineage—its descent from Initiated Measure 22, which Belfrage loathes; and its sponsorship by Represent South Dakota, which Belfrage denigrates.
In small ball, Belfrage laments that VPAC, like last year’s Initiated Measure 22, is “pages long.” Pages?! Egads!
For the record, in its current form, VPAC runs 3,401 words across six pages of the PDF I received. IM22 ran over 15,000 words. Except for Section 3, which amends current constitutional language on initiative and referendum, VPAC is written without overstrikes and insertions; instead, it is straightforward language, relatively easy to read, added to the constitution. IM22 was riddled with technical amending language, making it difficult for lay readers to decipher. VPAC is far shorter and simpler than IM22.
Branding VPAC as the spawn of IM22, Belfrage exaggerated the flaws of IM22, calling it “horribly conceived, horribly drafted.” He said he’s not convinced that Represent South Dakota wouldn’t serve up another constitutional mess like IM22.
I would simply point out that since VPAC is a constitutional amendment, it cannot be judged unconstitutional by any of the state constitutional arguments that Judge Barnett reached for in his December injunction against IM22.
Belfrage asks if there is a need for a ballot measure on ethics reform after the Legislature “took extensive action” in the 2017 Session and is promising to do more in 2018. Sure, the Legislature could do more in 2018, but (a) the Legislature can’t put any reforms into the constitution as VPAC proposes, and (b) concerned citizens can’t wait for 2018 to do a ballot measure. State law requires that we submit initiative petitions one full year before the general election—that deadline is November 6, 2017. If we wait to see what the 2018 Legislature does, we can’t put the things the Legislature misses up for a public vote until 2020. (Hey, Greg! How about this reform: move the deadline for submitting initiative petitions back to July 15 before the general election?)
Belfrage adopted a trope frequently cited by legislators fending off crackerbarrel criticism for their repeal of IM22: legislators, said Belfrage, are “part-time” lawmakers and “everyday South Dakotans.” They aren’t “meddling” in the process; they are our elected representatives, said Belfrage, not Represent South Dakota.
I would remind Belfrage that no matter how “everyday” legislators may act when they are back home, they think of themselves as a pretty elite “club” in Pierre, entitled to all that free food and booze from lobbyists.
Belfrage expresses a clear distrust of democracy. He says we don’t need continued end-runs around the Legislature (but we should express no outrage at Legislative end-runs around a vote of the people? That’s thin ice, Greg!). “Our system by design is not pure democracy,” says Belfrage. “It’s a representative republic…. Pure democracies do not work.”
I would ask Belfrage to offer an example of a pure democracy. I reject the notion that Represent South Dakota or any other initiative sponsor has asked for pure democracy. Citizens using the initiative and referendum process placed nine measures on the ballot in the 2016 election cycle. Compare that to the Legislature, which in 2015 and 2016 proposed 848 bills. One ballot measure for every 94 Legislative proposals falls far short of pure democracy supplanting representative republicanism.
Belfrage says our “Land of Nice” attitude leads a lot of people to sign petitions just because they feel obligated to do so. Funny—that’s not the attitude I’ve encountered with any petition I’ve circulated.
Belfrage urges people not to sign any petition for a ballot measure they don’t understand. I agree completely: read the petition, read the proposal, get information from the circulator. If you sense any evasiveness from the circulator, do not sign (but do take a picture, or a video, so we can keep track of which circulators are trying fill us full of bull).
But don’t discourage people from signing the VPAC petition just because you don’t like the organization sponsoring it or the ballot measure that preceded. Study the Voter Protection and Anti-Corruption Act. Decide whether the policy works on balance or not. Then argue, advocate, and sign as you see fit.
Sounds like someone doesn’t want to lose his seat on the lobbyist’s “gravy train” and have to simply walk – – like us non-legislative “everyday South Dakotans.”
Perhaps an argument can be made for representative democracy from a efficiency standpoint, but such an argument ignores the reality of our political system in this state and its constitution.
Like it or not, the people of South Dakota, over a 120 years ago, made South Dakota the first state to initiate the initiation and referendum processes, which naturally placed in motion an obvious or probable competition between the direct and representative qualities of our state constitution. But since our government is to be of and for the people. It is a logical inference to suggest that legislation initiated through a direct democratic approach should be supreme to the interests or acts of a representative democratic body. Especially when you understand the history of the initiative and referendum processes in our state history, as a part of a populous movement from the 1890s, which was put in place to enact the will of the people and not the assumed will of the people via a middleman better known as a representative body.
I also find it quite troubling how the opponents often talk about how poorly IM 22 was written, but I never remember any of this criticism having been interjected into the debate about that measure during the election season, however. Instead, the opponents kept to a “Vote ‘No’ on Everything” theme, which itself it evident of the indifference that the political establishment in this state has towards our obvious direct democracy capabilities within the constitution, which only further proves the arrogance and dismissive attitude some have towards are initiative and referendum processes, which itself only further explains the paternalistic attitude of the “House of Lords” mentality of our state legislative body and their enablers….
Has Belfrage ever stepped foot in the Capitol Building during session? The belief that legislators “represent” constituents is extremely naive, and dangerous. It’s his kind of “hands off, while the elites misrule approach” to government that causes the Pierre swamp.
I am sure that the legislatures need to get educated a bit before they are effective, otherwise they are just the ignorant ranting masses that Mr. Pay would like to have govern by mob rule and ignorant knee-jerk reaction-ism. Mob rule is what gets you Mr. Trump as your president, for which I blame Mr. Obama completely.
Belfrage needs to be reminded of the state motto, “Under God the People Rule”.
Grudz, your comments about the legislators “needing to get educated a bit” so they don’t become the “ignorant ranting masses” is absolutely insulting to most voters! I am an intelligent, well educated and well informed voter who understands what petitions I sign and what initiatives, referendums and candidates I support and vote for! And your obvious hatred for Obama and blaming him for the election of Trump is a sign of the kind of mop mentality that you pretend to eschew! It appears that you are the one in need of further education!
Mr/s CLCJM, those were insightful and truthful comments. I am sorry that you were offended by them, but it is the truth. And I do blame Obama for the election of Trump, but you don’t even try to figure out, use that brain of yours and figure out why that might be.
That tells me all I need to know about you. But no need for you to move along, you may still stay and entertain us all further.
Grudz makes an excellent point, though, CLCJM. South Dakota legislators are absolutely no different from you and me when they go to the Legislature. I’m not sure what the turnover is every election now, but it used to be about a third to a fourth of the legislature turned over every election, through retirement, term limits or getting beat. Really, it takes one or two years to “get educated” in the fine points of how the legislature works. That is just process, not substance. It takes four years for most legislators to become experts in a field other than in the field they have been working in in their private life. If Grudz is right, then anyone in their first term is essentially worthless to the process and even two term legislators are barely “educated.” That is about half the legislature. And that’s exactly my point. They ain’t any different than you or I, for the most part.
Of course, most legislators come into the session with some expertise in the field that they have worked in. That is no different from any other citizen. Legislators also have access to expert bill drafting by the LRC. So does the average citizen, if that citizen wants to construct an initiative. Legislators have opinions about what should be done. So do citizens.
I sat through many, many hearings on environment and natural resources bills in Ag and Natural Resources Committee. This isn’t bragging, but I had far, far more expertise on environmental protection issues than all of the legislators on the relevant committees and in the entire legislature, and, probably, than anyone in the LRC. Legislators, most of them if they are smart, recognize they don’t have all the answers to every question, and use lobbyists, government department heads, the LRC and others in their own communities as “experts” to help them come up with bills, positions on bills, etc. That is exactly the process that most citizen-directed ballot efforts use.
In essence, citizens use the exact same processes that legislators use in coming up with their initiatives, except that they haven’t been “educated” in the following ways: they don’t get fed by lobbying interests, don’t have bills force-fed them by lobbyists, don’t have “leadership” tell them how to vote and threatening them if they don’t vote the “right way,” don’t have the Governor using his powers to arm-twist, don’t have special interests promising “help” during the next campaign, and don’t have career-building as an ulterior motive. Grudz is right: citizens bringing initiatives usually haven’t been “educated” to be corrupt.
Well, Donald, you do present things in a thoughtful way and from a different perspective. I particularly like your final remarks that citizens who support initiatives aren’t “educated” to be corrupt!
You revealed the legislature as it is, heavily influenced by party loyalty, strong arm tactics from the executive branch, money and self serving interests! Thank you for respectfully enlightening me with a clear view of the realities of serving in the legislature that helps me realize even more what we are up against! We, as citizens, need to be ever more vigilant and informed and insistant in holding our state and federal governments accountable!
I don’t think Belfrage is on any “gravy train.” He gives the Legislature plenty of grief. I just think he developed a particular loathing for IM22 and Represent US that is now being improperly transferred to the South Dakota branch that has sprung from the group and the very South Dakota-specific ballot measure draft that has sprung from the Legislature’s arrogant rejection of IM22.
JKC’s point about the supremacy of the vote of the people is very useful. Given that all legitimate power comes from the consent of the governed, one would think that decisions made directly by the governed, without any middleman, would carry a purer legitimacy.
Donald and CLVJM are right to rebut grudznick’s assertion of the superior intellect of legislators. I’ve seen plenty of legislators struggling to piece together basic logical and grammatical statements. The Legislature is not marked by a surfeit of statesmanship.
I agree with Cory’s last statement. Read the amendment, if you don’t understand it, ask questions until you do. If you don’t agree with it, don’t sign it.
I don’t have a problem with Represent.US or Represent.SD or the people that make up these groups. I have some issues with some of their tactics.
Belfrage’s argument regarding the Legislature taking “effective” action doesn’t make much sense, either. When we were doing our initiatives on mining and solid waste issues, we were brought repeated ballot measures forward. Why? Even if we didn’t pass them, we drew attention to the issue, and legislators started paying some attention to it, passing minimal improvements every year. They never did anything without us sticking a ballot issue up their arse every two years.
How much effort did the Legislature put into correcting any problems with “effective” action before IM 22? If you guessed zilch, that’s correct. Even after passage of IM 22 they were pooh-poohing the problem. Still, the Legislature took some minimal action after passage of IM 22 to cover their arse for repealing the people’s anti-corruption act, and they are likely to pass some more band-aides, but only if people stick the threat of a Constitutional Amendment up their arse.
If people give up, corruption wins. The most effective way for people to keep the pressure on is to use the tools the SD Constitution provides.