Proposed Weiland measure doomed to fail before it starts. And here’s why!

I was chatting with a politico today about the measure Rick Weiland is sending out to people, when the person on the other end of the line made a statement…. and the proverbial light bulb lit above my head.

There might not be much more use in condemning his ballot measure to force you to register as a lobbyist if you go to testify in front of the PUC because a pipeline is going across your land. You might not like that he wants your property taxes to pay for politicians, but never fear. There’s a strong reason why he might never be able to get the required signatures.

Brevity.    Or more specifically, the lack thereof.

If you recall the draft language of the measure, noting what Slick Rick wants to do to South Dakotans:

Rick Weiland's awful South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT Language 150626 _ With Colors

Note the little thing at the bottom of each page (or at the bottom of the document reader window) regarding the number of pages: 44 of them.  Got it? Yes, 44 pages might not be a joke, but there’s a great punchline. ARSD 5:02:08:07.  Form of initiative petition:

5:02:08:07.  Form of initiative petition. Prior to July 1, 2010, the initiative petition form shall follow the specifications provided in this section that were in effect on December 9, 2009.

The initiative petition shall be in the following form:


WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified voters of the state of South Dakota, petition that the following proposed law be submitted to the voters of the state of South Dakota at the general election on November ____, _____, for their approval or rejection pursuant to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

Attorney General Explanation:
The text of the proposed law is as follows:
Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota.

(Insert the instructions to voters and signature blanks prescribed in § 5:02:08:00.03.)


INSTRUCTIONS TO CIRCULATOR: This section (bold) must (unbold) be completed following circulation and before filing.

Print name of the circulator                 Residence Address                                 City                  State

I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, that I made reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge each person signing the petition is a qualified voter in the county indicated on the signature line, that no state statute regarding petition circulation was knowingly violated, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration.

____________________________________   Signature of Circulator

Sworn to before me this ________ day of _____________, ______.

(Seal)         ___________________________________  Signature of Officer Administering Oath

My Commission Expires _______________

____________________________________  Title of Officer Administering Oath

Why do we care about this?  The petition form as mandated by administrative rule expressly sets forth that immediately after the Attorney General’s explanation, the text of the proposed law must be on the petition. prior to the petitionee’s signatures. As in all 44 pages of the initiated measure.

According to a note I just received from the Secretary of State confirming my suspicion:

Yes, you are correct that a petition sheet shall be self contained.  Even in the case where there is a significant amount of text that still holds true.

The size of the petition sheet can and will vary.  For example, the medical marijuana petition is 13×19 which includes the AG’s title and explanation and full text of the measure and still has 20 signature lines.

Binding of a petition is not allowed.

The medical pot measure might be on a 13×19 sheet of paper, but how large would a petition have to be to manage all 44 pages of Rick Weiland’s gobbledygook, plus have room for signatures, the circulator’s oath attesting that they were the circulator, etcetera and so on and still remain legible?

What will the printing costs be to crank out enough of these oversized mega-petitions to cover 20,000 signatures?   And how are these circulators going to manage what could be a pile of ridiculously over sized sheets of paper?

The 2014 election should have taught Rick Weiland a valuable lesson that might have done him some good in proposing his little measure. That there comes a time when he should just shut up.

It might have helped make what he’s proposing far more manageable.

Slick Rick Weiland has ballot measure drafted to limit free speech, fund campaigns with tax dollars, and require a lobbyist badge to argue with the DMV.

There was a message sent out today from Weiland to Drey Samuelson that was copied to a number of lobbyists. Which of course found it’s way to me, because everyone confesses to PP at the SDWC:

From: Rick Weiland [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:17 PM
To: Rick Weiland
Cc: Drey Samuelson
Subject: SD Anti-Corruption Act

I wanted to send along a copy of a ‘close to finish’ draft and outline of a ballot measure that we will be sending to the LRC later in the week.  If you have time and interest, please look over and share with me any final suggestions.  Thank you for your interests and any input you can provide.

pryanAccording to the above e-mail that’s been passed around among lobbyists like a bottle of rotgut among bums seeking warmth over a burning 55 gallon drum, Rick is planning on dropping his “Unconstitutional Measure to limit free speech and have taxpayers fund Democrat Campaigns Act” to the Legislative Research Council later to the LRC in the week.  (He calls it something different, but I’m just being honest.)

Apparently, various forms have been making the rounds among lobbyists over the past week.  This latest revision seems to be among the worst versions.weiland

The act, which according to the author information on the Microsoft Word File comes from the computer of a “pryan.” And according to the review information embedded into the document, the comments in RED print belong to Rick Weiland.

If we’re to believe what we read.

Here’s what Slick Rick is planning to do to South Dakota:

Rick Weiland's awful South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT Language 150626 _ With Colors

KaplanIf you’re just looking for the cliff notes, instead of reading all 40 pages. Here’s the analysis as contained on a Word Document provided to me by the Lobbyist corps authored by an “Alex Kaplan”:

South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act DRAFT initiative outline

Friday, July 26, 2015


  1. Improve disclosure of lobbyist activity
    1. Require lobbyists to report compensation received for their lobbying efforts. [ 2-12-11]
    2. Increase lobbying disclosure filing dates from once a year to four quarterly reports. [ 2-12-11]
    3. Require lobbyist disclosure to occur online in a machine readable format. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently, scans of handwritten forms frustrate disclosure and put an administrative burden on the secretary of state to input.
  2. Expand the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence state executive, department, or agency action. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently only applies to legislation.
  3. Prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts to legislative and executive branch officials and staff of more than $100 per year, per official. [12-27-49]
  4. Expand revolving door prohibition on compensated lobbying from 1 year to 2 years. Expand covered individuals from elected officers to include appointed officers, agency or division heads, and the highest paid aide, employee, or staff-person reporting to each. [ 2-12-8.2]

Campaign Finance

  1. Reduce contribution limits
    1. Individual giving to a statewide candidate: lower from $4,000 to $1,000. [ 12-27-7]
    2. Individual giving to legislative/county candidate: lower from $1,000 to $500. [ 12-27-8]
    3. Individual giving to political party: lower from $10,000 to $2,000. [ 12-27-9]
    4. Individual/Organization giving to PAC: lower from $10,000 to $2,000. [ 12-27-10]
  2. Impose lower contribution limits for registered lobbyists [ 12-27-10.1]
    1. Lobbyist giving to a statewide candidate: $500.
    2. Lobbyist giving to a legislative/county candidate: $250.
    3. Lobbyist giving to a PAC or political party: $1,000.
  3. Close campaign finance loopholes
    1. Limit number of PACs an individual can create by treating PACs controlled by one individual as one PAC. [ 12-27-10.3]
    2. Create soft money prohibitions to require that all funds given or spent in connection with an election be reported according to SD campaign finance law. [ 12-27-10.2]
    3. Prohibit campaign contributions from being converted to personal use. [ 12-27-13]

Disclosure / Transparency / Public Access

  1. Campaign finance disclosure
    1. Require campaign finance reports to be filed online using computer character input for committees that receive $1,000 or more in a reporting period. [ 12-27-41] Currently, scans of handwritten forms frustrate disclosure and put administrative burden on secretary of state.
    2. Require more frequent reporting of full campaign finance statements. [§ 12-27-22, 24] Currently, filings are made once in February, covering following year, and once before each primary and general election, covering fifteenth day prior to that election.
    3. Require basic online disclosure within 5 business days of contributions in the aggregate of $500 or larger. When contribution is received within 10 days of an election, report within 24 hours. [ 12-27-24.1] Currently, public must wait weeks or months, and often until after an election, to learn who is making significant contributions, especially close to an election.
    4. Require individuals who contribute $500 or more in aggregate to report their employer and occupation. [§ 12-27-11, 24] Currently, no such information required in any situation.
  2. Lobbying disclosure
    1. Require all lobbyist disclosure to be filed online using computer character input (prohibit scans of handwritten forms). Increase public access and reduce administrative burden on secretary of state.
    2. Enhance the public’s access to lobbyist information by requiring bulk download of data in an open format, among other modern technological improvements. [ 2-12-11]
  3. Independent expenditures
    1. Expand disclosure for independent expenditures. [ 12-27-16]
  4. Coordination
    1. Treat expenditures made at the request or suggestion of a candidate, his political committee, or their agents as a contribution for the purposes of reporting and limits. [12-27-10.4]
    2. Treat the financing of republication or distribution of campaign materials prepared by a candidate, his committee, or their agents as a contribution for the purposes of reporting and limits. [12-27-10.4]
    3. Require communications made by political committees or political parties to state whether or not it was authorized or coordinated with any candidate, and to state the name. [ 12-27-15] Currently, the communication need only display name of candidate, political committee, or political party paying for it.
  5. Electronic filing
    1. Require that electronic filing, in all circumstances, mean the online filing of standardized forms that do not use handwriting as input [§ 12-27-41, 41.1]
    2. Ensure that in order to electronically file, committee treasurers need only a common internet browser. Provide training materials for treasurers. Give secretary of state authority to grant filing extensions in extenuating circumstances related to technology. [ 12-27-41.1]
  6. Public access
    1. Ensure that public electronic disclosure of campaign finance information is in an open format, free of charge, platform independent, machine readable, and downloadable in bulk. [ 12-27-41.2]


  1. Establish the South Dakota Ethics Commission (SDEC), a five member body within which no more than two members may be affiliated with the same political party. [ 12-27-48] The SDEC shall have the following authorities and responsibilities:
    1. Implement and administer the Democracy Credit Program.
    2. Hire permanent and contract staff to assist in its duties.
    3. Issue recommendations to public agencies to promote trust in government.
    4. Review all campaign finance and lobbyist filings for compliance.
    5. Investigate probable cause for potential violations of ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying law, and refer matters to attorney general or secretary of state for further action. If attorney general or secretary of state take no action or takes action that the SDEC determines is insufficient, the SDEC may, by a majority vote, seek civil enforcement of the law.
    6. Adopt and publish regulations and advisory opinions.
    7. Report annually to the governor and legislature.
    8. Maintain a telephone hotline and internet portal for the submission of corruption tips.
    9. Maintain a website to educate the public about its role and the Democracy Credit Program, publish its reports and findings, and promote public trust in government.
  2. Prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts to legislative and executive branch officials and staff of more than $100 per year, per official. [12-27-49]

Voter Financing of Elections – the Democracy Credit Program [§ 12-27-47]

  1. Each year, every registered South Dakota voter will be issued two $50 Democracy Credits. They may choose to assign these credits to candidates that have been certified as “Participating Candidates” by the Ethics Commission (see below). When the voter assigns the Democracy Credit, the Ethics Commission shall verify their identity (signature and date of birth) and the eligibility of the candidate they have chosen. Transfer or sale of Democracy Credits is strictly prohibited.
  2. Choosing to become a Participating Candidate is an entirely “opt-in” voluntary decision – candidates may choose to continue to raise money in the normal fashion, but they will not be eligible to collect Democracy Credits. To become a Participating Candidate, candidates for legislative and statewide office must:
    1. 1) Demonstrate that they have initial support by collecting a certain number of small contributions (each contribution must be a minimum of $10 and a maximum of $200 or $400, depending on the office sought) from South Dakota residents, accompanied by the signatures and information of the contributors. The number of these contributions required varies by office sought: 50 for state house, 100 for state senate, 250 for non-governor statewide office, and 500 for governor. [ 12-27-47(5)(c)]
    2. 2) Agree to take part in at least three public debates; agree not to contribution more than $2,000 to their own campaign; and agree only to solicit or accept contributions that are from South Dakota residents and not, in the aggregate, over $200 if they are running for legislative office or $400 if they are running for statewide office. [ 12-27-47(5)(b)].

Note: Because of federal preemption of the regulation of federal candidates, candidates for US Senate and House for South Dakota need not perform the two tasks listed above in order to be eligible to collect Democracy Credits.

 Result: With this system, candidates for statewide and legislative office who demonstrate initial support become eligible to appeal to South Dakota voters in order to win the Democracy Credits each of them holds. These Participating Candidates are allowed to collect contributions other than Democracy Credits, but those contributions must be both small and only from South Dakota residents. The Democracy Credit Program rewards candidates for focusing on listening to and winning the support of South Dakota voters, not big money interests from out of state.

    1. The Program is carefully structured to ensure that Participating Candidates are given the opportunity to collect enough Democracy Credits in order to be financially competitive, but that one candidate cannot dominate the collection of Credits. [§ 12-27-47(6)(c)-(d)].

    2. This structure also helps keeps down the cost of the Program. In fact, while the Program is hard-capped at a maximum cost of $10 per registered voter per year (at current registration levels, $5.27 million – or about one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the state’s annual budget), varying participation rates and the multiple tiers of hard cost caps (first by candidate [ 12-27-47(6)(c)], then by total paid to all candidates seeking the same office [§ 12-27-47(6)(d)]) make it unlikely the program will cost even this much. Additionally, Democracy Credit funds unused after the primary election (if the candidate loses) and general election must be returned to the Fund. And if the Democracy Credit Fund is not paid out in its entirety, the amount deposited from the unclaimed property fund the following year will be only the difference necessary to replenish funds.


  1. Automatic inflation adjustment of number parameters throughout act (forthcoming). [12-27-50]

  2. [§12-27-51]

  3. Approval of electors will be required in order to modify a statute enacted by initiative. [ 2-1-21]

  4. Effective dates of certain sections will be added in order to give secretary of state and Ethics Commission time to make administrative changes, form, and put regulations in place. [end of doc]

If you review everything on the main Document, you can tell that this measure if not ready for prime time. In fact, it’s rife with problems.

You know it’s bad when the person is was written for – Slick Rick Weiland – questions the constitutionality of singling out one class of people based on their employment, where he notes “ARE THERE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS SINGLING OUT LOBBYIST ON WHAT THEY CAN GIVE??”

According to his awful act, if I’m up lobbying to help kids with Autism again next year, I’m now considered 1/2 a citizen for campaign purposes, and I can only give half of what everyone else can to candidates.  So, do people not advocate for kids in Pierre if they want to support a campaign?

What utter bullsh*t.

And then there’s his awful plan of taxpayer financed campaigns.   Weiland proposes to reverse the woefully inadequate limits that were amended eight years or so ago.  But don’t worry – While on one of his faces, Weiland wants to severely cap the amount that individuals can give to candidates, on his other face, he wants to have taxpayers pay for campaigns!

We have trouble fixing our roads, and paying for education, but look – here comes a dose of Slick Rick socialism to have government pay for campaigns!

And another big point in Slick Rick’s proposal – described in the summary as “Expand(ing) the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence state executive, department, or agency action. [§ 2-12-1, 11] Currently only applies to legislation.”  

So, under this definition, if I want to talk the Highway Patrolman out of giving me a ticket, I need to register as a lobbyist?  Or, I need to go explain how a specific law does not apply to an interaction with state government when they disagree, and now I’m forced to register as a lobbyist?

Good lord? How many lobbyists does Slick Rick intend to create? Because that’s a pretty damned broad law.


The other thing that Weiland doesn’t mention is how we’re going to pay for all of this.  Of course, many of the states with some public financing of campaigns are also states that have state income taxes. Which I’m sure if what they’ll be hoping for next when there’s no money to pay for his five million dollar boondoggle.

Without a doubt, this proposed ballot measure would be the worst (as in most awful) ballot measure facing South Dakotans next fall.

A measure of questionable constitutionality that limits free speech, wants your tax dollars to pay for candidates to campaign, and requires a lobbyist badge for almost any interaction to “influence state executive, department, or agency action.”

A good reason to voice a big thumbs down before it is even submitted for proposal.


Is SB69 lawsuit a stop gap effort because they know referral isn’t going to happen?

I was speaking with a few politicos the other day and the topic of the ACLU filing a lawsuit via attorney Brendan Johnson came up – Specifically the “why” behind the challenge to the deadline for new political parties.  In case you’re not familiar with it:

The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a South Dakota law that moved the deadline for new political parties striving for a place on the 2016 ballot.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of South Dakota’s Libertarian Party and Constitution Party, challenges a section of the law that shifted the deadline for new parties to submit declarations to participate in primary elections backward by four weeks — from the last Tuesday in March prior to the date of the primary election to the first Tuesday in March. The plaintiffs are asking the deadline be set for no earlier than March 29 for a party that wants to participate in South Dakota’s primary election, and August 1 for a party that does not need to participate in a primary election.


The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of South Dakota, and Brendan Johnson of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Read it here.

The discussion centered around an assumption that the movement to refer Senate Bill 69 (which in part was designed to make South Dakota more compliant with federal mandates to allow at least 45 days for military voting) is likely not going to be successful one, and may fall short of it’s goals. The talk was that, recognizing that likely outcome, the liberal powers that be decided to move forward with the lawsuit in an attempt to take up another front against the clean-up legislation.

With the referred law petition turn-in deadline looming on Monday at 5PM, there are three measures that are being currently circulated – The aforementioned Senate Bill 69 (Petition & election deadline reform act), Senate Bill 177 (Youth Minimum Wage), and House Bill 1179 (Changing the definition of a veteran).

What do you think? Are the petitions to refer legislative measures going to squeak in with sufficient signatures? Or are they going to fall short?  And is the lawsuit a recognition of that fact?

An interesting interlude regarding the proposed pot legalization measure.


I was doing a little bulk shopping in Sioux Falls yesterday at Sams Club with my wife, and happened to run into a Republican State Representative (who I won’t name, as I didn’t ask if I could go public with the conversation) who was doing a little shopping as well. He noted that he read with interest the post I had on Attorney General Marty Jackley releasing his explanation for the initiated measure relating to pot.

We both agreed that more often than not, the people proposing these types of measures were often their own worst enemies, and that they often go too far with what they’re asking for, such as the ballot measure that’s soon going to be introduced for circulation.

Are they simply trying to legalize certain derivative oils for children that physicians can prescribe in the absence of other drugs to reduce the incidence of seizures? Well, no.  I think both he and I (and this may surprise you) thought there could be a pathway to allowing that very limited kind of treatment, if it was prescribed and or administered by physician. The problem gets to be with the awful measures that keep getting thrown at us, and defeated by the voters, and the people out representing them.

The measure that’s set to currently be circulated allows sick minors to obtain pot, but really doesn’t limit the manner of application. So, a 4 year old could smoke it as soon as he can learn how to hold it in his little hand. As the South Dakota Secretary of Health once quipped in legislative committee “We don’t smoke our medicines in South Dakota.”  Not that the people proposing them ever take the hint.

Anyone under the act can designate “a caregiver” who can assist their use of pot.  And guess what? They’ll be able to grow it at home as well.   The act provides for cultivation in “enclosed, locked facilities,” to store or grow pot including “any closet….. that is equipped with locks.”   And who can prescribe the pot being grown in a locked closet? Not a specific type of physician, but a “Practitioner,” which is simply defined as “a person who is licensed with authority to prescribe drugs to humans.”   That could be a doctor.. or some counselors. Or more.

If you have non-smoking apartments, guess what landlord? You might ban tobacco, but you can’t ban pot smokers if they have their pot smoking card. Despite it being as bad for them if not worse than tobacco smoking.

The act being proposed as usual is filled with wide open loopholes, and takes away the ability of property owners to regulate the use of their property. All despite the fact that pot is still illegal at the federal level.

When you have measures in front of you as loose as this, most reasonable people are going to say no. In this instance, the legislator I was speaking with had a bill in front of him just like this during a recent legislative session. Expressing some of the same reservations, the reply wasn’t that the group asking him to sponsor it was going to work on it, or instead propose a much more limited version.

He was hysterically told that he was killing people, and the pot advocates started calling his house and otherwise haranguing him for the next couple of weeks. Really?

Unreasonable advocates who want to throw the door open for people to grow it in their closets and harass people who say no are not the kind of people you want writing & proposing legislation.

And you certainly don’t want them writing wide-open ballot measures that they want people to vote yes on.

Lawsuit filed to require specific language against nanny-state payday lending ban.

A lawsuit was filed against the Attorney General yesterday to include a clear statement of the consequences should a measure that’s soon to be circulated in South Dakota pass on the ballot next November:

South Dakotans for Responsible Lending is proposing the ballot measure. Jackley’s office approved language last month for the measure that would educate voters on what would happen if it passed. South Dakotans for Responsible Lending must collect 13,871 signatures of registered voters by November 2016 to qualify for the ballot.

But Erin Ageton, the vice president of operations for a title loan company, argues that if the measure were to pass, it would cause her employer to close stores in South Dakota.

“I am an opponent of the initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain lenders because I believe it will limit South Dakotans’ access to affordable credit by capping interest rates and charges for certain lenders at such a low rate that they will be unable to cover the cost of extending loans to customers who need them most,” Ageton wrote in an affidavit.

The complaint argues that Jackley’s description of the measure fails to inform voters that the payday lending industry would collapse if the 36 percent limit is adopted by voters. It notes that a 36 percent limit would not be enough to cover the expenses related to issuing loans.

Read it all here.

Ugh. Should a group of people who want to tell others how they should conduct themselves be able to make a fairly benign behavior illegal because they don’t like it? Should they be able to say “don’t do that, because I don’t think that’s good for you, and I’m the decider.”

Despite the fact that it’s legal, and some people are willing to take a chance and risk lending people money who don’t have a track record of handling it well, or paying it back on a timely basis?

The measure seems to be primarily directed towards people who let themselves get in over their head. But, just like nearly any other nanny-state provision, it punishes those who don’t abuse things. Payday lending can be a boon for those who are running short on a short term basis, but it isn’t, and shouldn’t be a salve to chronic spending problems.

I’ll offer myself up as an example – early on in my marriage, (close to 20 years ago) I had some awful, unplanned bill that was due – I believe an unanticipated car repair for a disabled vehicle – approximately a week or so before my monthly paycheck from the State of South Dakota. I obtained a $200 Payday loan, and it cost me $25 – $30 for it, and I was glad to have the car back in service.  It was worth that to me to get my car fixed.

The companies that perform that service have calculated the risk of providing it, and the risks and costs are built into the charges. If someone can do it cheaper, they would be out there advertising it. But let’s not kid ourselves. There are those who don’t pay their bills, and it adds costs for the rest of us.

So, here come the nanny staters with no solution other than to punish the whole for bad decisions of a few.

Are they going to start providing short-term low-interest loans on a statewide basis to people they’ve never met?  Absolutely not.  If they had any intention of providing solutions, they would have been out there working for a private solution allowing them to eliminate the need.

Instead of eliminating the need, they’re out eliminating the ability to fill the need. The need isn’t going to go away. In fact, it will get worse with people being forced to make payments late, be saddled with bounced check fees, or worse.

Promoting a ban on things you don’t like is little more than sticking your head in the sand and saying ‘problem solved.’ It’s an uncreative solution for an age-old problem that many people who work for a living have faced at one time or another.

And fewer ways to solve temporary problems are only going to make things worse for average working class folks who might find themselves in a bad spot.

Attorney General Explanation for Initiated Measure Petitions Relating to Alcohol and Tobacco Released; Says may be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds

From a Press Release from Attorney General Marty Jackley:

Attorney General Explanation for Initiated Measure Petitions Relating to Alcohol and Tobacco Released

PIERRE, S.D.- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that two Attorney General Explanations for initiated measures have been filed with the Secretary of State. These statements will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsors of the measures. If the sponsors obtain a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measures will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election.

1. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages

2. An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. It is anticipated that additional Attorney General Statements for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments will be filed in the near future. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, a clear and simple summary

Editors Note…. And the explanations were provided as as follows:

Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia


The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring tobacco, tobacco pipes, or tobacco rolling paper to another person or business in this state .. In the measure, “tobacco” means cigarettes, cigars, cigarellos, or loose tobacco. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift. A transfer of tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.

If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, this measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.

Title: An initiated measure to criminalize the transfer of alcoholic beverages


The initiated measure prohibits a person or business from transferring any alcoholic beverage containing more than one percent ethyl alcohol to another person or business in this state. “Transfer” includes the sale, delivery, trade, or gift of the alcoholic beverage. A transfer of an alcoholic beverage in violation of this measure is a crime. The severity of the maximum criminal penalty increases based upon the quantity of the alcoholic beverage transferred. In addition, a civil penalty up to ten thousand dollars may be imposed.

If approved, this measure will result in a loss of state and local tax and license revenues. Also, the measure will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. If the challenge is successful, the State of South Dakota may be required to pay money damages, attorney fees and costs.

Here’s what the AG has so far on Ballot Measures

They may change, and at the moment, the pot related measures are yet to be submitted in crayon, but from the Attorney General – here’s the latest on the ballot measures being proposed for 2016 ….

Ballot Measures 2015 by Pat Powers

“Attached are the 4 initiated measures and 1 initiated constitutional amendment for which this Office is currently preparing attorney general statements (titles and explanations) pursuant to SDCL 12-13-25.1. These are in the form as we received them from the sponsors.”

“Keep in mind that it is possible that the wording of these measures is potentially subject to change. It is our experience that on occasion, the sponsors may change some of the wording of their measures after first sending them to us. We do not make any changes to the measures ourselves. The titles drafted by the sponsors are subject to change, as SDCL 12-13-25.1 directs that the attorney general shall prepare the title.”

“For purposes of our obligation under SDCL 12-13-25.1, we will prepare a title and explanation based only upon the final form of the proposed measures. As a matter of practice, we attach that final form to our explanation when we file it with the Secretary of States office, so that everyone will be on notice as to the exact wording of the final version of the measure.

Thank you,

Jackley details all of what’s under review by the AG for ballot measures

I received a note from Marty Jackley this afternoon noting the status of what has been submitted for proposed ballot measures for 2016. In case you’re interested – here’s what Marty noted:

As of today, the Attorney General is currently preparing Attorney General explanations for the following four initiated measures and one initiated constitutional amendment (identified by the titles presented by the sponsors which is subject to change), which will be the subject of petition signature gathering in order to be placed on the 2016 general election ballot.

  • 1. An Act to provide for a limit on finance charges on payday, car title, and installment loans and to provide a penalty therefor.
  • 2. An Act to ban the transfer of alcoholic beverages with more than one percent alcohol content in South Dakota.
  • 3. An Act to ban the transfer of tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia in South Dakota.
  • 4. An Act to provide for the regulation, access and compassionate use of cannabis in South Dakota.
  • 5. An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution relating to initiatives and referendum.

The Attorney General’s title and explanation for each of these proposals will be filed with the Secretary of State within the next few weeks, along with the final version of each proposed measure.

In addition, based on information from the Secretary of State’s website (under “upcoming elections” link), there are three potential referred measures that may appear on the 2016 ballot if sufficient signatures are obtained, as well as one Legislature-proposed constitutional amendment that will appear. Attorney General explanations for these will be prepared by May 2016. They may include:

  • 1. Referral of SB 69 (revise provisions regarding elections and election petitions)
  • 2. Referral of SB 177 (youth minimum wage)
  • 3. Referral of SB 1179 (revise definition of veteran)
  • 4. HJR 1003 (constitutional amendment regarding the authority of the S.D. Board of Regents)

The thing that strikes me if all of these appear on the ballot? Especially when they hit the legal substance bans, followed by the pot legalization, people are going to start ticking off the “no” box as they have a tendency to do when the ballot measures start multiplying.