Attorney General Ballot Explanations Released for Two Initiated Measures Increasing the State Tobacco Tax and Creating a Postsecondary Technical Institute Fund

Attorney General Ballot Explanations Released for Two Initiated Measures Increasing the State Tobacco Tax and Creating a Postsecondary Technical Institute Fund

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Attorney General explanations for two separate proposed initiated measures have been filed with the Secretary of State. For each measure, the statement will appear on a petition that will be circulated by the sponsor. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures (13,871) for each measure by November 6, 2017, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2018 general election.

The initiated measures are entitled:
1. “An initiated measure increasing the State tobacco tax and creating a postsecondary technical institute fund for the purposes of lowering student tuition and providing financial support to the State postsecondary technical institutes.” (VERSION #1)
2. “An initiated measure increasing the State tobacco tax and creating a postsecondary technical institute fund for the purposes of lowering student tuition and providing financial support to the State postsecondary technical institutes.” (VERSION #2)

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed initiated measure.

Version 1

Version 2

7 Replies to “Attorney General Ballot Explanations Released for Two Initiated Measures Increasing the State Tobacco Tax and Creating a Postsecondary Technical Institute Fund”

  1. Anonymous

    While I wish that no one would smoke cigarettes etc, I am not in favor of this huge tax hike on one segment of our population. While the aim of this proposal is laudable, this is not the way to achieve it. I also think that this would disproportionately affect the lower income population of the state. Bad idea.

    VNOE once again. Vote No On Everything!!

  2. Anon

    Since tech schools actually benefit everybody then everybody should pay for them, not just a select group of social outcasts.

  3. grudznick

    Mr. A @ 2:15, why is it that the lower income people among us blow more of their disposable income on smoke sticks and chaw and beer?

    1. Springer

      Maybe I’m wrong, but if so, still lower income smokers would be paying a higher percentage of their disposable income with this tax; and that is always a point quickly made by many with regard to taxes.

  4. Anonymous

    Mickelson no longer has any credibility among conservatives. I guess we all now know the real reason that he decided not to run for governor. He would not have had a chance in the Republican primary.

  5. Anon

    I think we need a massive tax on vegans. They are consuming way too much produce from communist countries like California. We need a big tax on out-of-state fruits and vegetables.