Legislature, Governor Violate Single-Subject Rule 59 Times So Far This Session

1. Richard Schriever

   “someone’s got to sue.” An appeal to the ruling on Amendment A must include these “examples” – and perhaps request that the court rule on the constitutionality of the “single subject rule” in regard to the 1st amendment? (abridging free speech)? ACLU – are you reading?

   2021-02-20
2. Ryan

   Wait, so are you trying to tell me that this lady is a hypocrite!? That she would lie about her motives!? That she really doesn’t care about the people of South Dakota or our constitution!? That she is just an empty shell spewing easily disproven gop talking points!?

   I wish she would take questions from the public so we could ask her to clarify all these misunderstandings…

   Excellent work as usual, Cory.

   2021-02-20
3. Richard Schriever

   “someone’s got to sue.” Hey, isn’t the unequal application of the single subject rule also a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as well. I mean, isn’t the way it is used related to a differentiation between two “classes” (elected and unelected) of people? ACLU – are you reading more?

   2021-02-20
4. Ryan

   I emailed kelo this post asking them to present this to Noem for explanation. Guys, obviously we are missing something, there’s no way a politician would pick and choose when and how to apply laws. That would be preposterous……………

   2021-02-20
5. Jivin Knute

   I have lost what little faith I had with the one party legislature in Pierre.

   2021-02-20
6. Ryan

   Also I emailed this to the governor’s office. I don’t expect them to care about the opinions of us voters because they have proven they don’t, but it’s worth inquiring.

   2021-02-20
7. John

   Harsh morning to be the Covid queen or her judge.
   Exceptional work again, Cory.

   Someone should initiate a suit to throw out, void, all 59 laws. That should stop the Covid queen, her judge, and her lackey legislators in her tracks.

   2021-02-20
8. Ryan

   John i was thinking the exact same thing.

   2021-02-20
9. Donald Pay

   The subject of concern, as I recall, is the one addressed in the bill title. [The LRC’s “subjects” are not the item of concern. The LRC didn’t exist when the constitutional provisions was written.]

   “Single subject” is a vague term, and is thought to be essentially worthless, except people know it when they see it. Of course, people see different things at different times, so, yeah, it’s highly elastic. But it has a populist progressive root, and part of an attempt to clean up corruption that was quite rampant in legislative processes at the time. It was meant to prevent what is commonly done in Congress today, which is to pile all sorts of bills on all sorts of subjects into one bill so that unpopular bills can pass based on the popularity of one or two other bills that have to pass. There have been attempts by the SD Legislature to do away with the single subject rule, but they have all fallen away by a vote of the people, probably in votes on Constitutional
   amendments that violated the single subject rule. Other related terms are “logrolling.”

   I have seen a bill challenged on the single subject rule (can’t remember the year of bill), the President of Senate ruled to divide the question, and the question divided by the Legislature. Then I recall two separate votes on the divided question. After the votes the bill still passed on as one bill. That may still have violated the single subject rule, but no one challenged it.

   It think the ruling on Amendment A is bull crap. I hope someone challenges it.

   2021-02-20
10. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Ah, but Donald, the LRC is the professional agency charged with helping the part-time legislators do their job. The LRC is filled with experts who do’t use words lightly. If they refer explicitly to “subjects” of a bill, they must mean those are the “subjects” of the bill. And if the reasonable LRC experts can conclude that a given bill includes multiple subjects, why cannot any reasonable judge?

    2021-02-20
11. Ryan

    Also just reached out to Argus suggesting they follow up with this.

    Also emailed Brendan Johnson the link to this and offered my assistance if I can be of help in any way, although I’m sure his team and resources are robust. Never hurts to try to be involved, even if the impact is minimal.

    2021-02-20
12. Donald Pay

    I think the LRC gives a broader interpretation in providing bibliographic subject data that is not necessarily the same as what befits a single subject described by the bill title. But that’s why the whole “single subject” rule is confusing and contradictory. It’s certainly not applied under any sort of fair or consistent rule of law, as the ruling on Amendment A proves. It’s more like the “golden rule” than the “single subject rule,” and by “golden rule” I mean he who has the gold (or power) rules. Maybe the best course is to appeal that ruling, and get a clearer answer.

    2021-02-20
13. mike from iowa

    Wingnuts ignore the rules of law they passed? I don’t believe it for a minute.

    2021-02-20
14. grudznick

    You’re just being silly now, Mr. H. That’s like saying a pickup that just went by was “Ford, Blue, Crew Cab, AND Owned-by-an-old-lady-down-the-street.”

    I love it when you’re silly.

    2021-02-20
15. Donald Pay

    The other thing your can do, Cory, is to take all those bills, if they pass and are signed by the Governor, to court, and monkeywrench the whole Legislative process for this year. Probably would serve Covid Kristi right for screwing with Amendment A, and it might get a clearer definition of what “single subject” really means.

    2021-02-20
16. grudznick

    No court would follow the Council of Legislatures “subjects” as a constitutional ruler. The Council of Legislatures continues to become more inept each year, and this year is among the least ept in the last few decades. Ask any in the legislatures or in the lobbies. It is known.

    2021-02-20
17. Donald Pay

    Asking the most inept Legislature to speak about the ineptness of anyone else is funny.

    2021-02-20
18. grudznick

    Perhaps, Mr. Pay, it is the ineptness of the Council of the Researchers that is driving what you perceive to be ineptness in the legislatures. Perhaps, without the strong steady hand of the Conservatives with Common Sense in the caucus on the green side of the legislatures things would really be off the rails, with people like Mr. Nesiba and his minion Ms. Howard steering the boats. You are in Wisconsin, and far removed from the inside scoops on the workings. Like our good friend Bill would say, before he took all the big government contracts…I’m just sayin…

    2021-02-20
19. jake

    You’re blowin’ smoke, Grudz, like a ‘Coal-burner Dodge diesel’ truck. Cory is “spot-on” and you are again trying to sidetrack the thread and content of this posting. Those years of ‘legislature life’ appear to be still influencing your brain activity.

    2021-02-20
20. grudznick

    No, Mr. jake, I am spot on here and has already won the debate based on Mr. H using the Council of Legislative Researchers as his “standard” upon which to measure one-subjectness.

    grudznick has ruled. The debates are over on this single topic.

    2021-02-20
21. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Donald, I think we might serve the public interest if we took the entire approved Legislative agenda to court and sought rejection under the single-subject rule… or used the 2021 Legislative agenda in a lawsuit against the single-subject rule as an arbitrary and thus unconstitutional burden on core political speech.

    2021-02-20
22. Ryan

    Anybody have an email address list of all sd legislators by chance? Too tedious to look them all up but I will if I have to.

    2021-02-20
23. Donald Pay

    Cory, I actually like the single subject rule, but it needs some fleshing out. I just think that judge effed up badly. Amendment A is all one subject. The Legislature would be in a heap of trouble if they had to follow that ruling, and I think it would be just dandy if the Legislature and the Governor had to eat the same sh*t that judge was serving.

    2021-02-20
24. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Ryan, all legislator email addresses are listed on the LRC website. Firstname.Lastname@sdlegislature.gov.

    2021-02-21
25. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Donald, that judge’s effing-up, along with the Legislature’s own disregard for its own rule, provides the grounds for a challenge to the single-subject rule as written and applied in South Dakota. I don’t mind clearly defined laws with predictable application, but South Dakota’s single-subject rule does not rise to that threshold. Let’s throw it out!

    And I do wonder: would our lawmaking really suffer if we did away with the single-subject rule and did not replace it with any better defined restriction? Congress doesn’t have a single-subject rule. If members of Congress don’t like a provision, they can work to amend that provision out of the bill. If we voters see initiative that does too much, we can (and likely will) vote it down. Let the system govern itself by the votes of legislators and the people rather than imposing one more technicality that serves only to give anti-initiative pols and their well-paid lawyers legal footholds with which to thwart the expression of the popular will.

    And in the meantime, while South Dakota’s single-subject rule is in effect, let’s repeal the entirety of the 2021 Legislature’s output.

    2021-02-21
26. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Grudz, there is nothing silly about this argument. We are charged with composing laws that consist of a single subject. Conscientious lawmakers—regular citizens and elected legislators alike—may rightly ask, “What is a subject?” The law is mute on that question. The state’s only explicit declaration of the subject of any bill is on its own Legislative website, where citizens may see the “subjects” of every bill listed… and they see multiple subjects. Are you telling us that the state may say, “Oh, we said those are subjects, but those aren’t really subjects”?

    Who sounds silly now, Grudz?

    2021-02-21
27. jake

    No, Grudz, you are definitely obfuscating. Our state legislators have depended upon ALEC to provide the researched bills that they (ALEC) want passed and too rarely really draft, with the help of the LRC legal minds paid by our tax dollars. Hence, these Out of State master-minds pull the strings of our legislature. You so unkindly denounce all out-of-state influences as being so baa-a-a-d but become defensive of ALEC,s influence, why?
    Maybe, the raises of many $$$ that another of Cory’s postings announced recently-
    (which major media of course won’t tell us about until after they are passed in law)-
    should go toward the LRC to improve it?
    Any legal beagles out there who might consider a class-action lawsuit by the ‘people of S.D. against the state? After all, the state recently sued US over OUR vote on marijuana!

    2021-02-21
28. Donald Pay

    The single subject rule is a barrier to corruption. The single subject rule means every bill stands on its own.

    There’s a rule in the Legislature that every bill gets a hearing. Every bill. Bills on single subjects are easy for the average person to understand. People come to Pierre to testify on single subject bills. You think people are going to bother to participate effectively on monstrosity bills? As in DC, what you get out of combining subjects are huge bills that are a lobbyists’ wet dreams.

    It’s not just multiple subjects in one bill. It affects the whole legislative procedure. Don’t like hoghouse chicanery? Without the single subject rule, you’ve opened the door wide open.

    Put everything and the kitchen sink in one bill and the Legislature is not going to let anyone refer that bill. They emergency clause it. Now they’ve put a huge roadblock on the referendum.

    2021-02-21
29. Bob Newland

    To accuse Grudz of “obfuscating” is to accuse a prairie dog of living in a hole.

    2021-02-21
30. jake

    “Amen”, Bob N!

    2021-02-21
31. grudznick

    Mr. H, grudznick notes that every one of your “subjects”, as “subjects” are defined by the LRC not the courts, says “Executive/Judicial Request.” That, by itsownself, moots your entire argument. Many on your list have one other “subject” plus those words. “Executive/Judiciary Request, Public Utilities and Carriers” for example. Since every one of them says “Executive/Judiciary Request” they might as all also say “Law Bill” and “Words” and “English” since they are all law bills written with words in English.

    I know it is enraging, but grudznick wins yet another debate. If you disagree and really believe yourself then you should go to Pierre and thump on the table on every bill and shout at the legislatures and make them fix it. Or perhaps, the LRC isn’t really the arbiter of “subjectively assigned subjects” after all.

    2021-02-21
32. SD is 20 per cent nonwhite

    One party multi subject bills. Take away their Legislature!

    Wonder if courts would overturn ALL multi subject “laws” or law-letters?

    We have computers and cell phones. Why do legislative elections have to happen
    Every 2 years? Why not every 6 months or 2 months? Are we old fashioned to be always old fashioned?

    Seriously, Rapid City, Sioux Falls and McCook County need to be Blue Forever!

    2021-02-21
33. SD is 20 per cent nonwhite

    Right, void the laws in court.

    I wonder if Democratic Party leaders ever talk to people. If they don’t have a PLAN now to have power from 2022 to 2072, why not?

    Is it the sub-Democratic Party? We lose elections with style?

    Does anyone Dem leadership actually have a PLAN, an exciting one?

    2021-02-21
34. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Grudz, you have not won. You’re helping me win by making my point. One entity can deem something to be a “subject.” You can enter your own arbitrary rejection of that deeming and claim subjects are really something else.

    “Executive/Judiciary Request” appears frequently, but not in every bill I list. That subject is overrepresented in this list because those bills may be filed and run through the process earlier. It appears, nonetheless, to be a subject.

    But that’s the question: what is a subject? How are the courts ultimately to define a subject? How are the people to know what a subject is so that when they compose an initiative (or encourage their legislators to compose a bill) they know they are composing statutory text that will withstand judicial scrutiny? Are we to say, “Well, if Grudz says it’s a subject, then it’s a subject”?

    Your argument just shows we cannot find a reliable arbiter of this arbitrary term. You say the LRC, the entity that helps write laws and rectify the picayuniest of style and form issues, cannot be trusted to define “subjects”. That tells me the single-subject rule is a word game invoked to stifle laws the powers that be want stifled, not a fair and reasonable restriction on the legislative process.

    2021-02-21
35. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    Donald, I dig the process. I dig every bill getting a hearing. I dig avoiding the consolidation of logrolling into rushed omnibus bills.

    But those advantages of the single-subject rule come from preventing hasty, unscrutinized evaluations of proposals. The single-subject rule as applied to Amendment A produced no such advantage. It simply offered technical ground for a strained interpretation that killed a proposal that had faced public scrutiny for a year and a half.

    I am thus prepared to apply this same judicial precedent to every bill the Legislature passes until the courts recognize that the single-subject rule as written in South Dakota is arbitrary and unduly burdensome.

    2021-02-21
36. Cory Allen Heidelberger

    SD20%, my plan is to run someone for Governor who makes three promises:

    1. Never sue the voters on the voters’ dime.

    2. Veto every bill seeking to over a voter-approved initiative.

    3. Veto every bill seeking to weaken the initiative and referendum process.

    2021-02-21

Comments are closed.