IM22 Lawsuit has first hearing this afternoon.

The Legislator led lawsuit against Initiated Measure 22 will be heard this afternoon in front of Judge Mark Barnett in a Hughes County Courtroom, with the legislators standing against those who promoted the awful and arguably unconstitutional measure, as well as their own Attorney General, who is required to defend it in a court of law:

Their lawsuit receives its first hearing Thursday afternoon in Hughes County court. Assistant attorney general Steven Blair has filed state government’s defense of IM 22.

“Reducing the appearance of government corruption is a compelling government interest,” Blair told the court in the state’s response.

Blair said there isn’t a retroactive intent in the $100 limit on gifts to a legislator or family member from a lobbyist or a group that employs a lobbyist. Jobs they already have shouldn’t be affected, he said.

The publicly funded Democracy Credits system for legislative and statewide candidates is legal as well, Blair said. It relies on an appropriation of $9 per registered voter. Blair said the appropriation is legal too.


Representing Solberg and Frankenfeld is John Hinrichs of Sioux Falls. Other names on the intervention motion from the firm are Heidpriem and Kasey Olivier. Attorney James Leach of Rapid City is also on it.

Read the entire story here.

I notice their defense doesn’t have much to say about the unequal access of voters to IM22’s Democracy “Socialism” credit program, where government money is to be used for political campaigns.  I genuinely believe the manner in which some voters have access to it, and others don’t is going to be one of the downfalls of the measure.

What are your thoughts?

4 Replies to “IM22 Lawsuit has first hearing this afternoon.”

  1. Anonymous

    Poor Steve Blair.

    Now we know the lengths he is willing to go to serve the public.

    He’s a good man defending a terrible bill.

  2. Anonymous

    The law is terrible. We should all get credits or none of us.

    Ethics and lobbying reforms should stand.

  3. Troy Jones

    No retroactive intent means there is future intent.

    This is hilarious. One of the prime supporters will now have to resign his professorship or not run for reelection because his college employer will not turn down donations from firms that employ lobbyists as it is probably 100% of their benefactor list.