Here’s more public service you never get from your current District 3 Senator: I’m hosting a forum Monday to education voters about our five ballot measures!
I spend thirty minutes talking about the five ballot measures on which we get to vote—four from legislators (Amendment X, Amendment Z, Initiated Measure 24, and Initiated Measure 25) and just one from regular citizens (Amendment W). I’ll also discuss my own draft initiative to restore some of the petitioning and voting rights that the Legislature has taken away (and yes, I am paring it down! LRC got it up to 22 sections; I have it down to 14 and may go further). I’ll leave at least a half hour (longer if people are interested) for public questions.
Notice that, unlike my opponent, I won’t be offering any Internet hoaxes or agitprop masquerading as education. I’ll just explain each ballot measure, including my draft, talk about potential impacts, offer my opinion, then field honest questions with honest answers.
If learning about your democracy and you choices on the ballot interests you, join us for this free program Monday, September 24, 7 p.m., at the K.O. Lee Public Library.
Can you give us a preview of where you stand on these issues? Thank you.
I wish we could get something like this in Rapid City.
Hey, CV, all it takes is a candidate or two who’s studied the issues to rent a room at the library and invite everyone! (I’d come do it myself, but I’m probably not setting foot out of Brown County until after Election Day. ;-) )
John, I’ll spend less time on my views and more time on the details of the measures Monday. But I can tell you that I’m ready to vote against X, Z, and 24 right now. They serve no useful purpose, they make it more likely big money will dominate initiatives and referenda and crowd out grassroots efforts, and 24 specifically won’t survive a court challenge.
I’m still weighing W and 25. I welcome comment on all of the measures, but W and 25 offer the most opportunity for a fair comparison of honest pros and cons. Where do you stand?
I stand in an airport traveling so lets spend a little time…..
I don’t like 25 …I have heard both GOP and Dems both did resolutions against it. Heck for those type of miracles there must be something to voting no. I worry that people will run across to Wyoming and other states with lower taxes and then buy groceries, snacks, gas and spend those dollars also out of state…hurting our tax rolls and plus I do not like taxes on people who are the poorest among us addicted to something like nicotine…so from a social AND economic perspective….I am voting NO on 25.
24–I agree is unconstitutional…I worry that NO ONE seems to be talking about this one and it will pass when people read it only in the ballot booth….ban out of state money could SOUND attractive, but I agree we are buying as a state an expensive lawsuit which we will lose in the end. Educate the people on this one. So clearly, NO on 24.
Breaking this up in case they call my flight! Amendments next if I have time
W—worries me…some good and bad in it. I believe that $5000 cap will crush the Democrat party when it is mainly funded from the national party….there is a provision in there about 5000 max to a party and its subordinate units….already have trouble raising money…GOP has more donors traditionally and this seems very problematic. I also get the intent of not allowing Legislature to change IMs in light of IM22, but a broad brush….they can’t fix grammar or anything or even clear mistakes….leaning no on this one….wish it was broken up into more measures.
Z –who decides what is identified as a single issue….that is not addressed in this amendment and since it is a amendment, very problematic.. a NO also
X—raises level to 55% for amendments…I do agree amendments should be tougher to get than IMs…it sure is harder at the federal level….but then your stats show we might not even have a problem to fix….
leaning yes…but like to think about this one more….I did hear the bond issue in Sioux Falls took 60% and it makes sense that it should be harder to change the constitution than pass a bond….talk to me goose on this one more…or others
—-I do have a question for the group or Cory…I am not looking at the measures so maybe not an issue, but is there any conflicts between W and X…seems like W had provisions that said it superseded all other constitutional provisions…in changing IM/CA process…but if X is passed the same day and later on the ballot wouldn’t it control to raise that limit…or is that a conflict the Courts would have to figure out?
Thank goodness for airports encouraging people to think about ballot measures. :-)
Good question about W & X. Interesting suggestion… but I don’t think a conflict arises. W Section 2 says no law changing the rules, requirements, or criteria governing I&R may go into effect until it receives a simple majority in a popular vote. X is not a law; it is a constitutional amendment. Additionally, W and X, if passed, both go into effect on the same day, July 1, 2019. They both go into effect under the constitution and state law as they stand on the day on which the people approve them. Since neither precedes the other, neither could affect the other’s enactment.
On X: it doesn’t just take a simple majority to amend the constitution. To even get a shot at that vote, we have to schlep a petition around the state and convince at least 27,741 of our neighbors to sign (which practically means we better have 35K–40K). We also now have to get all sorts of documents from our circulators, face legal penalty for the slightest screw-up, and have tens of thousands of dollars on hand to hire lawyers in case of legal challenges. X might sound good in princple, but when we look at practice in South Dakota, we don’t need it. If we can make things work without additional language in the constitution, we should Keep It Simple, Stupid. X isn’t needed to achieve its stated goals.
Z: Yeah, who decides? Try expensive lawyers, whom grassroots groups can’t afford.
24: I’d much rather we voters nuke it instead of subjecting ourselves to a losing lawsuit. Much simpler to prevent the problem by voting NO.