Initiated Measure 22 criminalizes legislators departing, and those coming in.

Here’s a couple of stories that are coming in from legislators departing the process, and those who are newly elected.

Here’s the story from a legislator who decided not to run for re-election:

The current 105 legislators are in violation and the ones getting sworn in when session starts will obviously be too. Of course there is a lot of overlap. For me personally, my wife works for the local hospital so when she gets her paycheck next week I would be in violation of the new law. Am I suppose resign even though I most likely won’t vote on anything? This is crazy!

A legislator who didn’t even run in 2016 – and he’s going to be in violation of IM22 because his wife works?

My newly elected State Representative Tim Reed, who is also outgoing as the local mayor. He’s also affected – but in a different way:

So here is another one for IM22. I’m a board member and newly elected representative. My last SDML board meeting is early December. The League normally has a dinner and pays for travel expenses.

To be safe I’ll have to pay for the meal and travel expenses.

So, the Mayor – who is taking part in a function related to his job as mayor – is going to have to foot the bill for expenses that any one else would cover in the normal course of business. Except for IM22. If he lets them pay them, he’s guilty of a criminal act.

This act passed upon us by out of state nitwits, with the cooperation of Slick Rick Weiland, needs to go. Whether it’s at a special session, or at a regular session, it’s a serious mess.

13 Replies to “Initiated Measure 22 criminalizes legislators departing, and those coming in.”

  1. Anon

    Has there been any guidance from the AG or anyone else on what actually is or isn’t allowed? Just curious if these folks are actually in violation or if it’s just an assumption/precaution? It would be nice for someone to actually clarify this all.

    What a mess….

  2. anon1

    I know it would be tough for the legislature to overturn an issue that was just voted in by the people. But, I have to believe that a huge majority of the people who voted for it are just starting to realize that they were lied to.

    If a few of them would come to Pierre and testify to that, it would make it easier to just overturn the whole thing. Maybe also pass legislation about out-of-state funding, and intentionally misleading advertising.

  3. Troy Jones


    Exactly. The building codes don’t say how big a sewer pipe every building needs because it is affected by the type of building, how many bathrooms etc. so each builder has to submit the details and get approval. If they don’t and are later found to be not in compliance, they have to make changes and face getting fined. The total lack of definition of anything in this bill means nobody is can be sure about the specifics of their event without first submitting the facts to someone and get approval or face potential problems if they guess wrong.

    You are right. This is a total mess.

  4. anon1

    Slick Rick was on Kelo tonight trying to defend it…Even he couldn’t come up with a good argument. This will eventually be a huge embarrassment for him and the others that lied to the voters.

  5. Springer

    I brought up the ridiculousness of this bill today to a couple of ladies, and one of them (who obviously voted for it) thinks it’s great, that there needs to be an end to the lobbyist’s controlling things, and that if the politicians won’t listen to the people, then this is what they get. I brought up a couple of examples of how bad this is, but she just thinks this is the way to end all the corruption etc. She is a good person, but doesn’t understand IM 22 at all and doesn’t want to, just thinks this is the answer to all things bad in SD. And this is why it passed.

    1. Cliff Hadley

      Springer, I’d be curious to know how your friend proposes getting politicians to listen to “the people.” IM22 outlaws innocent transactions and relationships between politicians and individual constituents, as well as trade and professional groups — lobbyists. With fewer contacts among all involved, the people have reduced access to their representatives, and lawmakers will be in the dark with such separation. Less access is never good.

  6. MC

    Somehow I am not surprised.

    How many people know who their leglislators are? have they written them beyond a form letter? Do they know who sits on their city council?

    The legislature is listening! What do you want to say?

  7. Anonymous

    A lot of whine, where was all this prior to the election? I wish you would have wrote more about this then. I voted against 22, and didn’t think it would pass. But the people spoke. Let it play out for a while and fix portions that can’t work.

  8. Bill Carlson

    Yes, officials will have to pay for their own meals. Is it really that big of a deal? How much worth in meals were they getting in the past? By the amount of complaining about it, it sounds like it was a lot. If it was a lot, that isn’t good. If it wasn’t a lot, then this isn’t that big of a deal. Right? Any time you’re taking money out of politics, it is a good thing. Even if it is a lunch.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.