The short term lending campaign is getting a bit silly at this point:
Hickey does not expect this kind of commotion to die down any time soon, but says these alleged efforts will not stop his goal of capping payday loan interest rates.
“As a state legislator, I call for North American Title Loan Company to leave the state of South Dakota,” Hickey said.
How exactly does a state legislator call for a company to leave the state of South Dakota? Could it be magical state legislator powers that supersede time, space, the rules of evidence, South Dakota State Law and the US Constitution?
I’m guessing it didn’t work since he’s resigning. (Steve must not have turned his magic ring back in to LRC, and thought it would still work.)
Melissa Mentele’s pro-medical pot organization “New Approach South Dakota” is apparently out there in the field collecting signatures. And if you were quick enough the other day, you could get a free drink if you went down to the Longbranch in Pierre & signed their petition:
“Our volunteer is offering a free beverage to whoever comes down to sign!” Yeah… the only problem with that is state law:
12-26-15. Bribery of voter as misdemeanor–Acts constituting bribery. It is a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person, directly or indirectly, by the person or through any other person:
(6) To pay, lend, contribute, or offer or promise to pay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration, to or for any voter or to or for any other person, to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition;
(7) To give, offer, or promise any office, place, or employment, or to promise to procure or endeavor to procure any office, place, or employment to or for any voter, or to or for any other person in order to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition; or
(8) To make any gift, loan, or promise, offer, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to, for, or with any person in order to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking that saying “free beverage to whoever comes down to sign” might strongly be considered an offer to exchange a signature for a drink.
(Update – as you might have guessed, the post is gone from their facebook page. But luckily, we have it saved and displayed for posterity. – PP)
Local Victim Rights Groups Partner with National Organization to Pursue Equal Rights for Crime Victims in South Dakota
Passing Marsy’s Law would provide victims of crime with rights equal to those already provided to those accused and convicted of crimes.
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota, an organization composed of citizens and victim rights organizations in South Dakota, announced today that it is starting the petition process to place an initiated constitutional amendment on the 2016 General Election ballot for consideration of the voters.
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota is named after Marsalee “Marsy” Ann Nicholas. Marsy was a beautiful, vibrant University of California Santa Barbara student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Only a week after Marsy was murdered, her mother Marcella and her brother Nick walked into a grocery store after visiting her daughter’s grave and were confronted by the accused murderer. They had no idea that he had been released on bail.
Marsy’s family’s story is typical of the pain and suffering that the family members of murder victims have endured. The Nicholas family was not informed because the courts and law enforcement, though well meaning, had no obligation to keep them informed. Passing the Crime Victims Bills of Rights will ensure that future victims of violent crimes have Constitutional rights, and a formal voice in the criminal justice process.
Dr. Henry Nicholas, Marsy’s brother, has made it his mission in life to give victims and their families across the country constitutional protections and equal rights.
A constitutional amendment for victims’ rights, if adopted in South Dakota, would guarantee equal rights to crime victims. Victims and their families would receive information about their rights and the services available to them. They would have the right to receive notification of proceedings and major developments in the criminal case. They would have the right to receive timely notifications changes to the offender’s custodial status.
Victims and their families would have the right to be present at court proceedings and provide input to the prosecutor before a plea agreement is finalized. They would have the right to be heard at plea or sentencing proceedings or any process that may result in the offender’s release. Finally, they would have the right to restitution.
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota also announced today that attorney Jason Glodt will serve as its new State Director. Glodt, 42 of Pierre, is a former Assistant Attorney General and Senior Policy Advisor to Governors Rounds and Daugaard. Glodt also has over 20 years of experience managing campaigns in South Dakota and is a founding partner of GSG Strategies.
“I started my professional career as a prosecutor fighting for victims of crime,” said Glodt, “I am very excited to be back in a position where I will be working to help victims. Marsy’s Law is not a Republican, Democrat or Independent issue. We should all embrace it. That’s why we have put our political differences aside in support of Marsy’s Law for South Dakota. We are going to build a strong statewide grassroots organization and I look forward to working with crime victims groups and other citizens who support this worthy cause.”
“Thirty-two states already have some constitutional rights in place for victims of crime,” said Glodt “Unfortunately, South Dakota is one of eighteen states that currently does not have any constitutional rights for victims of crime, but we hope to change that.”
An “informed consent in lending” Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Attorney General and an opinion on same has been issued today with regards to capping loan rates, but allowing a higher rate upon specific disclosure of the rate. As noted in the measure:
No lender may charge interest for the loan or use of money in excess of eighteen per cent per annum unless the borrower agrees to another rate in writing. No law fixing an annual percentage rate of interest for the loan or use of money is valid unless the law provides borrowers the right to contract at interest rates as may be agreed to by the parties.
Should a person have the right to contract for a certain service at a certain rate if they’re made fully aware of the ramifications and the charges?
In the traditional sense of the word, Informed consent is a process for getting permission before a healthcare intervention on a person. Why or why not would an informed consent in lending be appropriate is a person wishes to seek the service?
Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Ability to Set Statutory Interest Rates for Loans
PIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.
This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871) and the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans
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.
To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the link:
To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:
An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution limiting the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans
Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment to Expand Rights for Crime Victims
PIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.
This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871) and the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
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.
To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:
An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws
An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia
An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages
An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission
An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to expand rights for crime victims
Doug Sombke of the South Dakota Farmer’s Union is the sponsor of the measure. And if you read the measure, I’d argue that his sponsorship not only is curious, it’s inexplicable given his leadership of the Farmer’s Union:
Why do I say it’s inexplicable? In terms of representation of farmers, there are parts that just don’t make sense.
According to the Rural Life Data Census center, there’s a distinct out-migration from rural communities into more urban areas. As noted at citizing.org back in 2010:
The population in South Dakota is slowly growing near urban hubs along the I29 corridor and in areas with recreational services such as in the Black Hills due to both rural migration and in-migration from neighboring states; while the rural population in 54 of South Dakota’s 66 counties continues to decline due to limited educational and employment opportunities.
As time goes by, cities increase in population and get bigger, and rural areas depopulate. Sombke’s constitutional amendment ballot measure contains a provision that upon passage, this group will redistrict right away in 2017.
Here’s where the head scratching starts as to who the Farmer’s Union is representing with the measure.
As noted in the measure they’re going to be circulating, “Districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable.” As rural areas have depopulated to some extent, cities have increased in size. As far as Sioux Falls is concerned, at the time of this proposed redistricting taking place 5 years early (as compared to the current census based redistricting every ten years), the state’s largest city will have gained anywhere from ten to twenty thousand residents, potentially giving the largest urban sector of our state another legislative seat.
And guess where is that seat going to come from…
The previously mentioned depopulating rural areas have significant populations represented by our agriculture sector of the state. And they aren’t farming in town. They’re out there where the land is.
As evidenced over time, every time we re-district these rural legislative districts, they continue to grow in geographic size as populations decrease. City districts get smaller, but as their populations grow, they’re capturing the seats being shed by those rural districts who have to scramble to look farther and wider to come up with the required populations to balance out to equal others.
This measure is great if you’re an urbanite, and want more representation in Pierre. But that brand new legislative seat in Sioux Falls has to come from somewhere.
And if you’re a farmer living in a rural area losing population…. well…… Sorry guys.
As a direct consequence of this proposed constitutional amendment, legislative district lines will be re-drawn 5 years early, shifting representation from rural to urban that much sooner. It’s inevitable anyway, but it leaves you scratching your head as to why the person fronting the Farmer’s Union would want to accelerate the continued erosion of rural/ag representation in Pierre five years early?
Especially when that previously scheduled hit in 2021 is still going to take place.
As opposed to an effort to improve the lot of agriculture in Pierre, it seems to be yet another attempt at social engineering from the party of Obama.
Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Regarding Legislative Redistricting
PIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election. This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871) and the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.
1. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to provide for state legislative redistricting by a commission.
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.
To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:
1. An initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders.
2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to allow referral of state and municipal laws affecting public peace, health, safety and the support of government and also to limit the ability to amend or repeal initiated laws.
3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use.
4. An initiated measure to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and
marijuana paraphernalia.
5. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages.
6. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia.
I’d heard that RIck Weiland had submitted a measure for AG review, and thinking it was going to be the latest form of his group’s 44 page monstrosity which will likely never print on a single page, I’ve been pursuing a copy of it for the last 2-3 days.
And tonight, I got my hands on a copy….. at least 2 proposed versions of it. And the measure submitted wasn’t the 44 page monstrosity being floated among lobbyists. What has been submitted was what Slick Rick had quietly alluded to in an interview yesterday with Greg Belfrage. From KELO-AM Radio:
The liberal TakeItBack.Org group wants the South Dakota State Legislature to become officially non-partisan. All the lawmakers would serve as individuals rather than as Republicans or Democrats.
The group, co-founded by former Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Rick Weiland, will try to get a proposed state constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot next year.
What Weiland is proposing is a constitutional measure to change South Dakota’s party primary systems from a political party primary based system to what’s commonly referred to as a “jungle primary,” where the top 2 vote getters from the June primary fight it out at the general election. So, in the fall, it could be a Republican or Democrat running. Or 2 Democrats running for one seat.
Or, in the most likely scenario given the crippling weakness of the Democratic Party in the state, 2 Republicans battling it out. And it’s at every level there’s a political office.
Note a specific part of the measure – it bans the candidate’s party affiliation from appearing on the ballot. As if it’s something they need to run from or be ashamed of. Personally, I think it’s an awful idea, and it seems like Weiland is plotting revenge against the Democrats for abandoning him in his ill-fated run for office, because that’s who it’s going to hurt the most.
But if I were Weiland in the last election, I’d want to hide being a Democrat as well.
What do you think? How do you think this measure would affect state elections?
Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 177 Validated by Secretary of State
Pierre, SD – Referendum petitions for Senate Bill 177, “An Act to establish a youth minimum wage.” have been validated and filed with the SD Secretary of State’s office. The referral process required that Senate Bill 177 needed 13,871 signatures in order to be referred to the vote of the citizens of South Dakota in the November 2016 general election.
According to state statute 2-1-16 the Secretary of State’s office is required to perform a 5% random sampling of the signatures submitted. The random sampling process was overseen and reviewed by Secretary of State staff to check the signatures for completeness and to ensure the signatures were registered voters in the county they stated on the petition. Following the sampling, it was determined that 17,077 signatures were valid.
Law and the US Constitution?
Marsy’s Law for South Dakota, an organization composed of citizens and victim rights organizations in South Dakota, announced today that it is starting the petition process to place an initiated constitutional amendment on the 2016 General Election ballot for consideration of the voters.
PIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.
And guess where is that seat going to come from…