Unseparate and Unequal?
There has been quite a bit of political discussion as of late on the power of the executive branch of government. The most noticeable example of that is the Executive Branch’s cadre of lobbyists, and recent comments and measures designed to deplete those ranks. But it doesn’t end there, it only begins. The discussion on this topic takes into account many things, some of which I’ve noticed over the years with regard to the separation of powers in South Dakota.
Or quite possibly, the lack of separation.
If you think about it, In South Dakota, we have little actual separation of power in Government. But by the same token, that’s the way we like it. How can it be argued with, when we don’t care to change it?
In 2006, after a thorough examination by a constitutional revision commission, we had an extensive overhaul of Article III, the legislative article, submitted to the voters for consideration. What did the opposing sides have to say about the article in the ballot explanation?:
Amendment F is a result of a review of the Legislative Article of the Constitution by the Constitutional Revision Commission. The Commission recommends this amendment as a needed “clean-up” to the Legislative Article.
The amendment does the following:
• Allows legislators to be compensated for expenses like other state officers and removes antiquated language that restricts legislator travel reimbursement to only five cents for every mile going to and returning from the Legislature;
• Allows the Legislature to take advantage of technology not contemplated at the time the Constitution was adopted and makes it clear that electronic voting is permissible;
• Makes it more difficult for sessions of the Legislature to be closed to the public and prohibits votes by the Legislature in closed sessions. Currently it takes only a majority vote for a legislative session to be kept secret. The amendment provides all legislative sessions shall be open to the public unless a two-thirds majority of the members declares the business should be kept secret;
• Removes antiquated language regarding private and special laws. The enactment of private and special laws would continue to be prohibited! The amendment merely removes what is inevitably a partial list of private and special laws that the Legislature was prohibited from enacting;
• Allows the Legislature to provide for the temporary succession of elected and appointed officials in an emergency caused by natural or man-made disaster. Currently the Constitution only allows the Legislature to provide for succession in an emergency resulting from an enemy attack; and
• Repeals a provision regarding term limits for persons elected to the U.S. Congress that has been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Revision Commission believes Amendment F will provide for an improved legislative process. The Commission urges a vote YES on Amendment F.
Submitted by Robert A. Miller, Chair, Constitutional Revision Commission, PO Box 1211, Pierre, SD 57501
and those against:
Why you should not vote for proposed Constitutional Amendment
F.Amendment “F” covers a very wide range of topics. When you read the proposed changes you wonder why such unrelated topics are grouped together. This is a concerted effort to place several desired and needed changes, along with a particularly offensive topic, so as to influence the voter to accept the bad with the good.
The offensive topic is the attempt to counter the South Dakota open
meeting law!Section 6 (which amends Article III of the Const.) seems innocent enough. It would only allow a closed meeting when a super majority (2/3) of the legislature votes to allow it. By inserting this simple phrase into the SD Constitution you will be allowing the Legislature to close any proceedings they wish, for whatever reason they want, whenever a super majority vote would allow it. The fact is that since statehood, the South Dakota legislature has more often than not been composed of a super majority of one party. Political block voting or emotions of the moment could close the political process to the press and the public. What a tremendous violation of the “open meeting law” written by the framers of our Constitution!!
This little diversion comes just when we are seeing efforts by the Attorney General’s office to enforce the current open-meeting laws! It is sad that we have to vote against this proposal when the rest of the changes are desired and needed. I urge you to reject this proposal and return it to the legislature. The legislature can separate the topics so they may stand on their own merit, as they should have been in the beginning.
Submitted by Representative Burt Elliott, 13687 387th Ave,
Aberdeen, SD 57401. Representative Elliott represents District 2.
Predictably, it went down 2-1. And when each of the measures were separated and taken to the legislature to be passed out to the voters the next year, none of the proposed measures made it out of the legislature.
A chance to fix just a few minor inadequacies in the Legislative article, and yet those all went down in flames with the public and legislature. But at the same time we still hear complaints about allegedly inordinate amounts of power the executive branch is able to exercise.
I’m starting this as a series of articles touching on topics surrounding this issue as we approach the new legislative session, and I’ve got some good food for thought on the issue – Here’s a sampling of what some legislators had to say on the topic:
“But that is not what the governor wanted – he did not want to look like the bad guy and tried everything in his power to kill this piece of legislation. This in just one example and this type of stuff goes on during the entire session.”
“I believe the legislative branch is independent enough if both the House and Senate work together on the issue.”
“We should increase the staff of the legislature to include about double the pay and have a staff person for each district that can be used for more than just drafting but also help with constituent services, very important and get rid of interns.”
“As long as the legislature is willing to carry the water they will always be viewed as waterboys, and when was the last a waterboy was consulted for his view point?”
“Is there an imbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government? Of course. But the legislature is complicit in that arrangement. Time and again, the legislature has voted down bills that strengthen its hand.”
There’s a diversity of opinion on the topic, and a difference in approach. Some think it’s up to the legislature to decide they want to be more independent. Some think it’s independent enough already. Some have very strong opinions on the way things are and the way things ought to be.
And there’s never a dull moment.
So stay tuned as I compose these articles about the state of our government in the opening years of the 21st century. What it means to us, and what it should mean to us.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
In South Dakota, we have the ultimate separation of powers, Pat (pun intended) — one that the Federal government doesn’t (but perhaps should) have. It’s called Initiative and Referendum, and South Dakota was the first state to ever have it. That means that South Dakotans know that if their Republic fails them, they’re just one year away from being able to clean house.
The legislators should have a pay increase and paid staff that is directly accountable to the members. These two things would improve the legislator’s ability to research issues and make it worthwhile to invest all of that time and energy. The way it currently is legislators don’t have the time to research the issues adequately, but have to rely on the executive branch for information. The wage is just insulting. That’s why we have the likes of Klouceck, Adelstein and Klaudt.
By the way, I’m not a legislator, but have lamented that the legislature has no ability to assert itself. Term limits aren’t the problem. New blood that is close to the people is a very good thing. The new legislators are more apt to listen to the people than the lobbists.
I was thinking of running for the legislature once.
I thought I might be good at it.
Then I saw how little they get paid
and how everybody thinks they’re scumbags.
And I figured, hey…
I’ve already got a job like that.
(Barum-pum).
Term limits have not changed turnover in the legislature at all. It was before and continues to be about 30% each election. What is has done is ensure that there are not even a few legislators with long records of experience.
I agree that term limits are a joke, and that was forseen when John Timmer initiated this joke back in the 90s.
Today, what’s fascinating to watch is a legislature that has been whipped into submission by Janklow as a spineless, nutless branch of government. It finds itself now in the position of having to appear supportive of a spineless, nutless governor who has no clue what his role as chief executive is, other than to enrich his family members and to muzzle state employees, state records, and the press. So far, the only Republicans appearing willing to demonstrate they want to lead are the wingnuts Napoli and Apa. Their senate leader, Knutson, self-identifies as a liberal on social issues, but won’t buck the governor or House Leader Larry Rhoden who is Rounds’ whip on the third floor.
Democrats don’t have the votes in either chamber to do anything, but that leaves the role of “who’s in charge” wide open to anyone with the Machievellian skill and the balls to grab the agenda and go.
If you doubt me, then answer the question: “Who’s stopping someone from grabbing the gold?”
Have you ever seen anything as ridiculous as the power structure in Pierre these days? One-party rule has finally devolved to the reputation of the Hapsburgs.
#5 makes some very good points. For the casual observer with only an 8th grade level of civics, there would be the assumption that there is an inherent separation of powers under the Constitution. However, no one could argue that it has been, under single party rule, over the last two to three decades where the executive branch has seen an explosion in power over the other two branches of government in South Dakota. State government is no different than jr. high student council. If everyone is a friend and they all play together on the playground on the same team, is it really reasonable to expect that their going to push back when everything seems to be going along swimmingly for all involved? The tension and partisanship in Washington is because we constantly switch back and forth between party rule and while everyone complains about the bickering, it serves to check any one party, and their operators, from becoming captives of the system rather than serving their constitutional purpose. And for those that think this situation would be any different in Pierre if Democrats would have had single party rule for the last two to three decades, you’re off your rocker is well. A republican (not the party) system of government requires the tension of a healthy multi-party system and without it, it loses the ability to self-correct and remain in balance.
South Dakota, like many post-colonial nations, has in some ways depended upon the Great Man theory of rule. Except for Poppa Joe Barnett, who can remember a single SD legislator who didn’t become a governor? Right, none.
So, as the colony/post-colonial entity that we are, we have relied on the Great Man to try and take us to glory. It is a bipartisan list, though Republicans dominate as they have dominated the state’s politics. An incomplete list of the Great Men who, as philosopher-kings or near Stalins (I’ll let you make up your own minds on who is who) follows:
Gov. Peter Norbeck (R)
Gov. William McMaster (R)
Gov. Dick Kneip (D)
Gov. Bill Janklow (R) (For some South Dakotans, the only Governor they know or remember.)
Gov. George S. Mickelson (R)
All were outsized personalities in a land where the introverts stare at their shoes and the extroverts stare at your shoes. (Thank you, comedian Tim Bedore.)
As Fleming points out, the “checks and balances” on strong executives, the crony capitalists who fill the statehouse lobbies (sorry, my lobbyist friends) is not the legislature, it is the people of SD through initiative and referendum. Seems like that has been the case not just in recent years but throughout our history.
We apparently like a nutless legislature that is essentially a glorified debating society and pro-life meeting, no matter which party is in charge.
I think term limits have made a bad situation worse, as do inadequate lobbyist reporting laws. I’d like to see our legislators have more power and grow a pair, or at least one. But I’m not expecting those things to happen any time soon.
The problem in South Dakota is not rooted at the well-heeled power structure in the Guv’s office and his cadre of yes-men in the lobbying corps. The root of the problem is the people of this state and the sickening lack of citizen involvement outside initiative and referendum, which these days has become an industry for out-of-state interests as we saw last year.
There has been an assumption since before statehood that elected leaders are not prevented from looting, pilfering, cheating and bullying to fill their pockets and retain power. People shrug their shoulders and turn their backs. The press — especially in Pierre — suck up to the power structure and become its lackey lapdogs.
Nothing demonstrated how accepted this corruption has been accepted for so long as much as the recent hearings on open meeting laws. There is no presumption of open government because it has NEVER existed. There is no “culture” of open government in South Dakota, unlike other states.
As long as an acquiescence to and assumption of corruption continues to exist in our state, and is not replaced by an assumption of open government and accountable governors, the people of South Dakota will remain disinterested in their local and state governments. We maintain the perfect climate for tyrants.
People become disinterested in politics when they work for and contribute to candidates who say they will do something when campaigning and then when elected pander to the biggest, most corrupt institutions and corporations.
See Thune, Johnson, Daschle, Herseth-Sandlin for recent examples.
Look for votes supporting banks, insurance companies, crappy loans, sky-high minimums in farm payments, war powers for Bush that violate balance and separation of powers, voting for intellectually corrupt Bush appointees, etc. etc.
10. Doug, weren’t you thinking at one time that the SD legislature might function better if it were unicameral?
Stan is the Man to bring some balls back to the limp-wristed ‘leadership’ of Apa and clown-ism of Napoli.
Todd, I wish the legislature had attained the status of a glorified debating society. but since they almost all hide behind closed doors, they can’t be accused of being a debating society because they aren’t open for debate.
13. Not everyone. Only the people who call me a fetus sandwich eater, a zombie, a baby killer, a murderer, etc, insult my wife and daughters and teach their own children on public street corners to behave the same way toward people they’ve never met, shouting insults, waving ghoulish, hideous, nightmarish pictures in front of everyone’s children and grandchildren who pass by. I admit I don’t have much patience or respect for people who act like that. And I don’t lose a bit of sleep because of it.
Wasn’t Burt’s opposition viewpoint on this amendment disengenuous since the proposed legislation made having a closed session MORE difficult? It changed it from a majority vote to a two-thirds. Shouldn’t the open meeting folks have been for it? I think the public was misled.
Hunters can’t stomp into the woods once a year, stinking of alcohol, making loud noises, yelling outlandish things and expect to have a successful hunt.
If you don’t get the metaphor….legislators are there for 35/40 days a year, the executive and his people can run circles around those ya-hoo’s.
Thank God there is no balance of power. We’d be in a lot of trouble if these legislators had any klaudt.
You will never hear a bigger fire-hose of moronicism than spews from the collective mouths of the Legislature and those in their employment. Until we have full time legislators and they hire competent staff, this won’t change. Otherwise, the “rich hunters stomping into the woods” analogy above is dead on.
It’s not term limits being the problem. It’s focus and cronyism.
PP, I gotta tell ya, it’s pretty funny to hear you whine about Stan being critical of extremist points of view while you wail away at Sibby, CAC and Newland for being extremists. You know what they say, dude. “One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.” Peace my brother.
Bill,
I have beat on the Unicameral horse for many years. The bi-cameral legislature makes no sense whatsoever at the state level. It is as senseless as having two governors, two attorney generals, two supreme courts, etc. Since around 1965, Nebraska has had a version of the unicameral which may not be right for SD, but is the only state legislature that makes any sense now.
A well-designed unicameral would make it easier for citizens to know what is going on and harder for legislators and executives to game the system and act as if they are doing one thing when really they are giving the store away to some privileged special interest group.
More importantely, a Unicameral would be better able to balance and separate power among the legislative system, the court system, and the executive department.
Worth remembering that the current budget is about $5,000 per person in South Dakota. Some structural changes may be in order.
20. I know you’ve been saying that Doug. I just wanted to get it on record here and to say that I also think it’s a good idea. It’s either that or those of us who should know better turn into Ninja Stealth Republicans and take over their action. Lord knows were more sober.
Huyahh!
Unnh!
p.s. Doug, can I borrow your blask mask?
My grandkid set mine on fire last halloween.
going to a unicameral legislature is a bad idea. Does anyone really think that Nebraska’s model is a success?
A Unicameral is a bad idea for conservatives. We believe that less legislatition is better (the government that governs the best governs the least). So why switch to a system that makes it easier to pass laws?
Look back over the past few years. How many pieces of dumb legislation have gotten through one house before being stopped by the other? It is important.
A whole lot of ignorance being displayed by “anonymous” posters who are so enamored with the flawed present they can’t think seriously about better, more sensible, less wasteful systems.
The Nebraska model of a unicameral is not one I would want replicated in SD. There are many ways a unicameral can be made. After the years of experience by Nebraska, there are lessons that can be learned.
We get a lot of crappy legislation introduced in SD with legislators knowing it can be killed in the other house, but which allows them to pretend to their supporters that doggone it anyway, I really tried, but those SOBs in the other chamber killed it. Maybe next year.
A Unicameral could have split sessions which would effectively be the equivalent of two houses.
We don’t need more bad legislation, we need better legislation coming from an open, efficient system. The SD legislative system is not good for reall conservatives or real liberals.
The single most damaging thing the the legislature vs. the governor has been term limits. Legislators are constantly being cycled through – no one has any base of knowledge or institutional memory.
That is why lobbyists and the executive branch have become more important – they are the ones who know what is going on.