Initiated measure 22 faced it’s first battle in a courtroom today. Judge Mark Barnett was not terribly kind to the measure, and found several problems with it that may be insurmountable.
Judge Barnett pointedly raised issues with the constitutionality of the following portions of IM 22:
- The Ethics Commission.
- The Appropriation for the so called “democracy credit” program.
- And most importantly, one of the most problematic portions of the measure-Section 31 of IM 22 and the “gift” limitation.
With a written decision coming possibly as soon as next week, look for Judge Barnett to hammer IM 22 as it relates to those items.
The question is whether any of the measure can stand apart from those issues, or if the rest of the measure is so inexorably tied to them it must be shut down in its entirety.
What happened with IM 22?
FREEDOM WON…Rick Weiland lost!
I never understood the democracy credit portion. Money for only a few?
It would be nice to hear Rick and Drew interviewed by someone who actually understands this law.
I’d just like to know why some people get money and others don’t. I’m not even sure Rick understands this law because he only talks in platitudes when discussing.
Drey
Have you heard this one?
http://listen.sdpb.org/post/dakota-midday-measure-22s-challenges-and-opportunities
Apparently Ricky isn’t up on constitutional law along with his out-of-state socialist friends from Teddy Kennedy’s old stomping grounds, Massachusetts. Anything Rick is involved with seems to be a debacle, so why do some South Dakotans still seem to think he has any credibility?
Good rule of thumb-if Rick Weiland supports something it is probably a bad, anti-American, anti-freedom, big-government idea.
You left out unconstitutional.
I love your last paragraph!
I believe in the KISS principle-Keep It Simple, Stupid (not that people against Rick are stupid-just the contrary).
The entire bill needs to be declared unconstitutional. In the meantime, everyone reading this should contact their state legislators and urge the legislators to repeal the entire bill and then have discussions on which parts of it are credible, constitutional, and workable and should be passed as single-item bills as our state constitution requires.
Chad, I think we also need to assess whether the changes made in the last legislature are sufficient or insufficient and workable/effective or unworkable/ineffective. Good policy is done reflectively and not reflexively.
unless you take a consulting fee in the 100’s of 1000’s of dollars in which case reflex away…
I cannot disagree with that.
The sad thing is that Weiland and Frankenfeld never had to answer the very simple questions about how these thirty plus pages actually solved the problems they identified. It doesn’t. Very sad what they pulled off onSouth Dakota. There are targeted things that could be done, Judge Barnett talked about his prior work in that regard as AG. But this simplistic stuff in IM22 wasn’t ever designed to solve a problem or improve our state
Of course it wasn’t Lee, IM22 was designed to create disruption and dissension while creating the narrative that the state GOP is overruling “the will of the people,” along with the added advantage of giving Rick Weiland a fundraising revenue stream.
To give credit where credit is due, Rick is getting exactly what he hoped out of IM22.