The Fight for IM 22
This week brought intense committee hearings on HB 1069, a total repeal of Initiated Measure 22–the anti-corruption and government accountability measure, approved by voters last fall. It contains an emergency clause, making it exempt from referral by voters.
The bill was filed last Friday, and the Republican super-majority seemed determined to rush it through committee and pass it into law by the end of the week. While the measure did pass the House, the intensity of calls and e-mails from citizens coupled with unflattering media attention both in state and nationally resulted in the Senate’s vote being deferred until next Wednesday. The new “spin” you may hear by supporters of HB 1069 this weekend is to suggest that without its passage, the state is in a kind of legal vacuum in regard to campaign finance law. That’s simply untrue: Judge Barnett’s injunction on IM 22 (resulting from Republican legislators’ lawsuit against it) means that we are operating on old law as the case makes it way through the courts. Once again, there is NO emergency. This bill should be killed, or at the very least, the emergency clause should be removed.
Your voice DOES make a difference! Keep up the calls and e-mails, and with a four-day recess this weekend, it’s an excellent opportunity to talk to your legislators in person as well.
The Next Attack on Direct Democracy
SB 67, which was scheduled for hearing last Wednesday, was deferred for another week due to the large amount of testimony on HB 1069. This bill dramatically increases the number of signatures needed to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, and contains an emergency clause barring voter referral. Once again, this is NOT an emergency.
While it may seem like a good thing to make it harder to change the constitution, South Dakotans have shown great restraint about doing so at the ballot box. Changing the number of required signatures from 10% of the gubernatorial voters in the last election to 10% of registered voters in the entire state (an increase of nearly 88% using last election’s figures) raises the bar to the point where only those well-funded groups (e.g. payday lenders) who can afford to hire petition circulators are likely to have a chance to get an amendment on the ballot.
Not Too Late!
SB 59 in its original form would have allowed the governor to veto initiated measures passed by voters. That most egregious piece was amended out by the sponsor thanks to backlash by citizens even before it landed in committee. However, the first section of the bill, which delays the effective date of initiated measures to July 1 of the following year, did pass the Senate, and has been referred to House State Affairs.
The argument by supporters is that because initiated measures go into effect almost immediately after the election, state government needs more time to plan for what changes they bring. The problem is that such a lengthy delay tempts legislators to tinker with voter-approved measures before they are engrossed. Senate Minority Leader Billie Sutton offered an amendment to move back the effective date to January 1st, but it was rejected. This measure does NOT contain an emergency clause YET.
And So Much More…
Black Hills Chapter members strongly oppose the Governor’s Spearfish Canyon/Bismark Lake land swap. SB 114 is a $2.5 million appropriation to swap state-owned grasslands for U.S. Forest Service property in the Hills for the purpose of creating a new state park, and the administration is pushing it hard, despite budget constraints.. Yesterday, Governor Daugaard announced that, if approved, there would be no entry fee for the new park, which he said was the bulk of citizen complaints. SB 114 has been referred to the Joint Committee on Appropriations.
The Governor’s anticipated Buffer Bill (SB 66) is out. While it’s a first, tentative step toward watershed protection by tax adjustments on buffer strips, it’s a small one. That said, most conservation groups agree that it should be supported.
Several bills bringing back extensively revised pieces of the anti-corruption and government accountability act (IM 22) have also been filed. It’s hard to determine how to approach those until the HB 1069 debate concludes.
Good news: SD Stockgrowers has again introduced SB 135, Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation for beef, with a good number of sponsors on both sides of the aisle. It has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.
Legislative Cracker Barrels This Weekend:
Mitchell–TODAY–Fri. Jan 27, noon, City Council Chambers
Spearfish–Sat. Jan. 28, 9am, High Plains Western Heritage Center
Brandon- Sat. Jan. 28, 9am, Legislative Coffee with District 10 & 25
Brookings–Sat. Jan. 28, 9am, City-County Government Building
Vermillion–Sat. Jan. 28, 9am, City Hall
If you know of any other Cracker Barrels this weekend, please let us know.
Thanks for all the calls and e-mails you’ve made and thanks for the good work you do!
Rebecca Terk, DRA Lobbyist
Dakota Rural Action 
DRA Member Post: South Dakota Ethics
Carl Kline is a weekly columnist for the Brookings Register and a Dakota Rural Action Brookings Chapter member. He is an adjunct faculty member at Mt. Marty, Watertown, and serves as interim pastor of the UCC Church there, as well as coordinating the Satyagraha Institute.
I have to say a word of thanks to State Representative John Wiik for his recent legislative report in the January 31 Brookings Register about “Why IM22 Just Has to Go.” Although his arguments weren’t very satisfying to this writer, at least he tried to explain why this initiated measure passed by South Dakota voters was unconstitutional.
Wiik mentioned that the description of a “gift” to a member of the legislature in IM22 was too broad. He suggested that because his children might be in a public school and the school was lobbying the legislature, he would be in violation of IM22.
This seems quite a stretch. I’m sure SD citizens are not lining up to take their legislators to court for having their children in a public school that lobbies them. And if the courts are in such bad shape that they would accept such an interpretation, they need as much help or more than the legislative branch.
On the other hand, it’s not unheard of for persons in government to put the needs of special interests above the needs of the larger community when it comes to education. Consider the continuing struggles over who uses what bathroom or how public schools teach science. Do people receive “gifts” for promoting these causes? Personally, I’d like to know.
IM22 helps provide greater transparency. With transparency comes understanding. And if the gifts in these battles are simply the appreciation and toasting of their supporters, so be it. We can respect that. And we can respect personal integrity on an issue and voting one’s conscience. And although some legislators might not believe it, the great majority of SD citizens are not out to say “got cha.” They want to know that their voice is not drowned out by “gifts.” They are simply asking for some modest assurances of legislative integrity and the reality of one person one vote.
Another argument for IM22 being unconstitutional some have put forward is that the public financing proposal forces tax payers to support candidates they don’t like, as well as those they do. If only this argument were carried to its logical conclusion. I don’t want any of my tax payer money going to help the legislature assume the role of refugee police, a job I know Lutheran Social Services in Sioux Falls does amazingly well (after a long and extensive vetting process by the government). Why don’t I have a choice now as to how my money is used? What’s so different about public financing of elections?
Those against IM22 also claim the initiative as written allocates tax payer monies for public financing when only the legislature is allowed by the constitution to do that. Simple enough! Since the citizens of the state asked for public financing, let our representatives just allocate the money. I’m sure that will be the first item on the legislator’s agenda, after repealing the initiative, but saying they want to abide by the will of the people.
One other constitutional argument has to do with the independent ethics commission. Critics of IM22 claim it allocates an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. They claim the only ethics commission constitutionally allowed is one the legislature creates to police itself.
Honestly, South Dakotans know we live in a one party state. We know we have recently seen some serious violations of the public trust, resulting in deaths and disgrace and the misuse of public funds. If the legislature is not able to adequately root out ethical concerns in state government, the people need their own independent option. Since the party in power seems so resistant to this idea, perhaps members of the media, the clergy and the business community need to establish their own ethics commission. Some citizens are getting tired of having an F rating among the states on government accountability and transparency.
One final concern, opponents of IM22 are fond of pointing out most of the funding for the initiative came from out of state. Using that argument, how is it that all of the leadership in the Legislature were OK with taking campaign funds from Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas corporation? After all, ETP has not treated all of our SD citizens so well. They coerce our farmers and ranchers with threats of eminent domain if they can’t put a pipeline through their backyard. They threaten our waterways and aquifers. They ignore the wishes of our Native American residents. They continue to take fossil fuels out of the ground when our climate and children require they stay put. Let us at least know how much these massive corporations put into the pockets of those who claim to represent us.
I’d still like to know what kinds of “gifts” the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) provides legislators. Am I as a taxpayer still paying to help them get to ALEC meetings? And shouldn’t there be a cap on what one can receive from PAC’s and individuals? What’s unconstitutional about that?
An independent ethics commission could help answer these questions for citizens deeply concerned about the ability of governments to function. Partisans, ideologues, and money from special interests are undermining our democracy. If our representatives are determined to make the initiative process harder and repeal what the people approve, let’s create our own commission to do ethical investigations.
Share this: