Nelson and Nesiba Work Together to Help Ballot Question Sponsor
Published 2017-08-01 by
Cory Allen Heidelberger
That Sioux Falls paper picks up the story we discussed here back on July 1, that sponsors’ incautious editing may have limited the scope of its recreational-marijuana initiative to legalize pot paraphrenalia but not pot itself. Naturally, the SDGOP spin blog sees the story as an opportunity to ridicule the sponsors personally. I see a more instructive opportunity to highlight some unusual bipartisan cooperation inspired by the ballot question:
Nelson & Nesiba, twin public servants!
Sens. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, and Reynold Nesiba, D-Sioux Falls, said they worked with [ballot question sponsor Melissa] Mentele and [Legislative Research Council director Jason] Hancock to understand the discrepancies between the language submitted and the assessment of the measure.
If the measure is approved at the ballot and he is re-elected in 2018, Nesiba said he would be willing to bring legislation clarifying the bill’s intent.
Senators Nelson and Nesiba may be alphabetically adjacent in the Senate roll call, but they are about as far apart on various ideological scorecards as members of the Legislature can get. Yet Senator Nelson, a strong opponent of marijuana legalization, and Senator Nesiba, who sponsored unsuccessful SB 157 this Session to recognize valid medical marijuana permits from other states, are able to work together to get information for citizens working on a ballot measure.
Of course, Senator Nelson’s respect for the initiative process gives him a justification for voting against amending any flaws in the recreational marijuana measure:
The opponent of recreational marijuana who represents Mentele’s district said he was sympathetic to the ballot measure sponsor’s concerns but likely couldn’t justify voting to amend a voter-approved law down the road [Ferguson, 2017.07.31].
I can’t fault Senator Nelson for that position: if voters approve a ballot measure, legislators should leave it alone. Senator Nelson took exactly that position last winter when he bucked his party’s repeal of Initiated Measure 22. However, if the voters place this recreational marijuana initiative on the ballot and approve it in 2018 with the intent of legalizing, regulating, and taxing recreational marijuana, and if state officials foil that intent by interpreting the initiative to permit only the possession of empty bongs, one could argue that Senator Nelson would show more respect for the voters by supporting the sort of amendment Senator Nesiba suggests to clarify the resolution’s intent. But Senator Nelson is right to be cautious of tinkering with voter-approved initiatives and should support no amendment unless it is backed by genuine and widespread grassroots voter demand.
Two ballot measures are circulating right now—the modified IM22 constitutional amendment and the Voter Initiative Protection amendment—would both limit the Legislature’s ability to amend voter-approved initiatives. IM22-redux would require any such change to an initiative to go to a public vote; VIP would require a 2/3 vote of each chamber for seven years after enactment.
But remember, the 2017 Legislature passed Senate Bill 59, which now sets the enactment date of any approved ballot question as July 1 following the official canvass of the vote. Thus, if the marijuana initiative passes and if either of the above constitutional amendments passes, the 2019 Legislature would still be able to amend, repeal, or further fudge up the marijuana initiative by simple majority votes before July 1, 2019.
Rorschach
If the carelessly written ballot initiative only legalizes paraphernalia it may actually get more votes than an initiative legalizing mary jane.
The repeated incompetence of the doofuses trying to put this on the ballot gives rise to the question, “What were they smoking?!” But we already know the answer. The sooner they pool their pot/munchies money to hire a lawyer for drafting, the sooner they will get it right. By 2018 will they still be here, or living in Colorado?
Don’t the modified IM22 constitutional amendment and the Voter Initiative Protection amendment hinder opportunities to tweak and improve laws? No law is an island. Everything changes and changes are necessary. I understand the SoDak Legislature has a reputation of going backwards on change and denying voters what they’ve demanded on election day. Is taking every little tweak back to the voters a workable paradigm for future implementation of legal adjustments? The timetable involved would be a snail-like pace. I suppose the proper answer is to vote for Democrats who “want” things to be better, not Republicans who have aversion to even minor changes and a negativity bias toward new ideas.
Yes, Porter, those amendments cut both ways. On the off chance that ballot question sponsors and voters mess up after 2018, those amendments make it harder for us to fix the problem quickly and Legislatively. But that’s the price we pay when we have a Legislature that won’t listen to us on lots of other issues, so we have to pay the price of inefficiency by handling things ourselves.
Snail-like timetable? Hmm… the Legislature has imposed hurdle after hurdle to make initiative and referendum so tedious and demanding as to deter people from using them; perhaps it is only fitting that citizens retaliate by making tinkering with voter-approved measures so tedious and demanding as to deter legislators from bothering.
Porter Lansing
I see that, Cory. Perhaps it is fitting. I’m used to a more functional legislature that fears for their re-election if they’d pull those Republican partisan bullying tactics. On the marijuana issue, the law has been tweaked over two dozen times in five years, by both political parties. It’s very important to get it right because we’re setting precedent for the country. New problems arise with legal weed all the time. Of course, what people in SoDak can’t come to grips with is that it was Republicans that voted it legal, not Democrats. Republicans voted to stop the black market, keep their youth out of the courts and increase the state tax income and those goals have been reached.
Cory, Wouldn’t passage of the Constitutional Amendment version of IM 22 prevent any changes by the legislature?
As I read them, if they both pass this recreational marijuana bill could not be fixed without bringing it back before the people. John
Excellent question, John!
Two ballot measures are circulating right now—the modified IM22 constitutional amendment and the Voter Initiative Protection amendment—would both limit the Legislature’s ability to amend voter-approved initiatives. IM22-redux would require any such change to an initiative to go to a public vote; VIP would require a 2/3 vote of each chamber for seven years after enactment.
But remember, the 2017 Legislature passed Senate Bill 59, which now sets the enactment date of any approved ballot question as July 1 following the official canvass of the vote. Thus, if the marijuana initiative passes and if either of the above constitutional amendments passes, the 2019 Legislature would still be able to amend, repeal, or further fudge up the marijuana initiative by simple majority votes before July 1, 2019.
If the carelessly written ballot initiative only legalizes paraphernalia it may actually get more votes than an initiative legalizing mary jane.
The repeated incompetence of the doofuses trying to put this on the ballot gives rise to the question, “What were they smoking?!” But we already know the answer. The sooner they pool their pot/munchies money to hire a lawyer for drafting, the sooner they will get it right. By 2018 will they still be here, or living in Colorado?
Why not go nationally as well, like this Democrat has introduced. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/1/16073124/cory-booker-marijuana-legalization
Don’t the modified IM22 constitutional amendment and the Voter Initiative Protection amendment hinder opportunities to tweak and improve laws? No law is an island. Everything changes and changes are necessary. I understand the SoDak Legislature has a reputation of going backwards on change and denying voters what they’ve demanded on election day. Is taking every little tweak back to the voters a workable paradigm for future implementation of legal adjustments? The timetable involved would be a snail-like pace. I suppose the proper answer is to vote for Democrats who “want” things to be better, not Republicans who have aversion to even minor changes and a negativity bias toward new ideas.
Yes, Porter, those amendments cut both ways. On the off chance that ballot question sponsors and voters mess up after 2018, those amendments make it harder for us to fix the problem quickly and Legislatively. But that’s the price we pay when we have a Legislature that won’t listen to us on lots of other issues, so we have to pay the price of inefficiency by handling things ourselves.
Snail-like timetable? Hmm… the Legislature has imposed hurdle after hurdle to make initiative and referendum so tedious and demanding as to deter people from using them; perhaps it is only fitting that citizens retaliate by making tinkering with voter-approved measures so tedious and demanding as to deter legislators from bothering.
I see that, Cory. Perhaps it is fitting. I’m used to a more functional legislature that fears for their re-election if they’d pull those Republican partisan bullying tactics. On the marijuana issue, the law has been tweaked over two dozen times in five years, by both political parties. It’s very important to get it right because we’re setting precedent for the country. New problems arise with legal weed all the time. Of course, what people in SoDak can’t come to grips with is that it was Republicans that voted it legal, not Democrats. Republicans voted to stop the black market, keep their youth out of the courts and increase the state tax income and those goals have been reached.