Among the hogs Senator Jim Bolin was washing on public radio this noon was his contention that Amendment X, his effort to raise the popular vote (though not legislators’) for passing amendments to the state constitution from simple majority to 55% isn’t part of the multi-pronged Republican effort to take initiative and referendum away from South Dakotans but merely a modest proposal (ahem) to make it harder to change the foundational governing principles of our state.
Sure, Jim, keep telling yourself that.
Someone should remind Jim that our august Constitution itself—not just all 120 amendments to it since statehood but the very document itself—was adopted by simple majority vote:
If it shall appear in accordance with the returns hereinafter provided for, that a majority of the votes polled at such election, for and against the Constitution, are for the Constitution, then this Constitution shall be the Constitution of the state of South Dakota [South Dakota Constitution, Article 26, Section 5, 1889].
We created those founding principles by simple majority. We’ve run pretty well on those principles, with frequent amendment, for almost 130 years. There’s no compelling need now to make it harder to amend that document than it was to create it.
Here’s something to consider with X: when our state was founded, those founders knew full well how difficult it was to amend the US Constitution, but decided to make the South Dakota Constitution different. Rather than adopting the ratification process used at the federal level, they simply required that every amendment be approved by a majority of voters plain and simple.
When our constitution was formed, it was protected because of the fact voters had the final say, not in spite of it.
Amendment X bucks 130 years of history by insinuating that protection – our public majority vote – isn’t good enough any longer and for no apparent reason other than to arbitrarily silence the voting public.
Excellent point, Doug.
Even in the more radical provision for revision by constitutional convention, Article 23 Section 2, our constitution makes both the call for convention and the revisions approved at that convention subject to simple majority votes. Three fourths of each chamber of the Legislature has to vote to submit the question of holding a convention to the voters, but once the Legislature clears that initial hurdle, it’s all majority vote from there.
Why does somebody have a problem with the Citizens of South Dakota deciding what percentage is needed to change the SD Constitution?
I didn’t hear anyone say they have a problem with the Citizens of South Dakota deciding what percentage is needed to change the SD Constitution. I want South Dakotans to have the final say on their constitution. I want them to have more say in deciding the rules under which they live as a check on an unresponsive and power hungry Legislature. I want them to be able to decide on amendments by simple majority rule, the same as they decided on he creation of this constitution itself.
Jason, again, you just can’t read. Your obsession with trying to spin everything into fodder for a personal attack keeps you from engaging in a simple, normal, intelligent conversation about actual policy.
I continue to find the most compelling argument and bluntest rebuttal of the silly SDGOP push is that the legislature does the overwhelming majority of amending. Therefore, if the citizens need protection from too many amendments, it’s clearly the legislature’s ability to amend that needs to be curbed.
But none of what the SDGOP is saying is true. They’re just following Pootie’s/Kochs orders in grabbing for power which they’ll transfer directly from SD to their masters.
True that, Debbo. Debating Trumpists is no fun, since they’re just playing word games, not seeking real truth. They know their ideas are inferior and don’t care. They just want power and thus deploy words as mere means to that power. Tedious and immoral.