Press "Enter" to skip to content

Minority Rule Is Not Cool—Vote No on Amendment C!

Speaking of Amendment C, Dakotans for Health is campaigning against the Legislature’s attempt to get its favored Republican primary voters to rig the South Dakota Constitution for tax-dodging anarcho-capitalist plutocrats against ballot measures:

Dakotans for Health, poster opposing Amendment C, posted to FB 2022.02.14.
Dakotans for Health, poster opposing Amendment C, posted to FB 2022.02.14.
Don’t let a minority of billionaires and business special interests overrule the will of the majority. Minority rule is not cool—Vote No on Amendment C!


  1. Jake 2022-02-16 13:48

    How well put- “A minority of billionaires and special business interests!”
    Our legslature is making the people of South Dakota look like fools with this measure.They get elected with 50% plus a tenth of percent to go into session worried about who goes where to potty, oe desiring to play sports in a way they (legislators) don’t want, claiming to be representing the ‘people’. Those ‘people’ vote heavily in favor of ethics in government and later marijuanna and those “representatives” fall apart trying to jack around the will of the people…

  2. grudznick 2022-02-16 17:14

    Because the voters are so easily hoodwinked by dark, out-of-state special-interest money, there needs to be more protections against the shenanigans that people from New York and California try to foist onto South Dakota.

  3. Arlo Blundt 2022-02-16 18:27

    grudz—you are wronger than wrong…people don’t need to be protected by the few millionaires and tax dodgers among us…let the people rule…a 50% plus one majority has always been a majority in America.

  4. grudznick 2022-02-16 18:31

    Why, then, Mr. Blundt, is it two of every three fellows in the legislatures required to break the rules or to pocket money for some special group?
    I do not think this 60% is enough, it should be 67%.

  5. Porter Lansing 2022-02-16 18:46

    Grudznichts is projecting onto the voters what he means about the legislators. i.e. Easily hoodwinked. Southern dark money comes into Pierre, buys a few drinks and b-jobs and the rural bumpkins, sitting in seats way too big for their tiny brains, follow the money like lambs to slaughter.

  6. Loren 2022-02-16 18:54

    “Shenanigans that people from New York and California try to foist onto South Dakota?” Hey, Grudz, I thought the Kochs were from Kansas!

  7. Mark Anderson 2022-02-16 20:27

    Grudz you deal the people of New York and California a great disservice. They don’t give one damn about South Dakota. At least you know your really in the minority when you ask for a third to prevail.

  8. grudznick 2022-02-16 21:15

    Mr. Anderson, your short-sightedness of my mocking of the out-of-staters saddens me. grudznick had you in fairly high esteem, being the sort of fellow you are. I shall reconsider how we deal with the out-of-staters based on your advice.

  9. grudznick 2022-02-16 21:16

    grudznick sure got a nice share of goats tonight. It seems too easy. You fellows need to keep your stables more stable.

  10. Arlo Blundt 2022-02-16 21:24

    grudz…take your goats out to the south forty and commune in the moonlight with them.

  11. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2022-02-17 05:33

    It seems contradictory to say that because a minority is able to sway the voters, we need to adopt a provision allowing the minority to control our politics.

    There also seems to be no logic in Amendment C’s (and, implicitly, Grudz’s) declaration that fiscal issues are so important that they require greater amount of popular consent while other measures are not as important and may be left to the whims of a mere 50.0001%. Why is raising taxes more important than banning abortion, censoring thought and speech in schools, or amending our petition laws?

    For that matter, why would we require a 60% or 67% vote to create or raise taxes but only require a simple majority to cut or repeal taxes? Funding schools and roads is vitally important. Reducing the revenue the state has to maintain vital services poses an enormous risk to public welfare. Shouldn’t that risk require that any measure imperiling public services gain the assent of far more voters than other measures?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.