Circuit Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Initiated Measure 22 Lawsuit

Circuit Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Initiated Measure 22 Lawsuit

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett has issued a preliminary injunction in the Initiated Measure 22 lawsuit.

“It is my duty and responsibility as Attorney General to defend measures adopted by the voters and I will continue to do so,” said Jackley.

Initiated Measure 22 was approved by the majority of South Dakota voters last month as an act to revise State campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission, and appropriate funds.


12 Replies to “Circuit Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Initiated Measure 22 Lawsuit”

  1. Anonymous

    Wasn’t this exactly as expected? The Supreme Court will ultimately decide, and then we’ll have our answer.

    And now back to our regularly scheduled free lunches.

  2. Troy Jones

    Reading Mercer’s tweets, it appears to be more than a temporary injunction. It appears to be permanent unless IM22 lawyers have new arguments to make and he expects it to go to the full Supreme Court for a final decision. Odds on it getting a single vote for constitutuinal? I suspect pretty high.

    1. Anonymous

      Troy did you write that backwards? I think the odds are LOW on getting a single vote for IM 22 being constitutional

  3. Fred Deutsch

    Some of Mercer’s tweets:
    • Judge Barnett said appropriation for Democracy Credit program appropriation is outside the constitution.
    • Judge Barnett is reading from notes on yellow paper as he issues bench decision granting the injunction to stop IM 22 from taking effect.
    • Barnett said a fourth branch of gov’t can’t be created without a constitutional amendment.
    • IM 22 violates Article II of SD constitution requiring three separate branches of gov’t, Barnett said
    • Barnett said legislative power can’t be delegated by initiative.
    • “I didn’t make this all up. This isn’t my opinion. This is what the cases say,” Judge Barnett said as he cites past SD cases.
    • “I credit fully and positively the motives of the voters,” Judge Barnett said.
    • Barnett said “the big nail” for opponents of IM 22 is appropriation and admissions by IM 22 defenders that appropriation power is unlimited.
    • He said constitution requires all appropriations outside Legislature’s general appropriations bill are special bill needing 2/3 majorities.
    • Barnett said “no precedent” for anyone other than governor proposing budget and “no precedent” for anyone other than Legislature to approve
    • Making IM 22 plaintiffs wait a month isn’t much harm but legislators can get arrested if IM 22 stands as session opens, Barnett said.
    • Barnett said most of IM 22 can be done thru constitutional changes “I do find it’s unconstitutional. The injunction is granted,” he said.
    • Judge Barnett concludes hearing at 3:25. Began at 1 p.m.

  4. anon

    IM22 was an attack on South Dakota. The question is, what have we learned? Our state will be attacked again. How do we better defend it next time?