I was interviewed on a radio station this morning with regards to Amendment T, as they were looking for the reasons why people should vote no on it. I got through maybe a third of my talk, so I thought posting some of the specific points against it for readers might be a good place for those seeking good information on why you should reject Amendment T, which stands for Terrible.
Unaccountable.
Amendment T, the redistricting measure seeks to establish an unelected & unaccountable board to redraw the legislative district lines and take this power away from our elected Legislature. In fact, if you think about it, instead of having Legislators, who are directly elected by the people, it would replace them by an unelected board, appointed by another unelected board.
Amendment T is the bureaucratization of democracy. and provides bureaucrats power over voters against which the voters have no recourse.
It’s a solution looking for a problem.
In 2011, with the input of Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leadership, and others, legislators redrew the lines and received Obama Justice Administration approval, despite previous lawsuits and redrawn lines after previous redistricting.
Now FIVE YEARS later the South Dakota Farmer’s Union has spent over $150,000.00 to establish this board which would redraw the lines in 2017 and again in 2021, thereby providing extra cost and confusion to voters. The proponents of this Amendment are seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist, by gerrymandering our legislature.
The Redistricting commission in 2011 improved the District maps by reducing the number of split counties and adhering to the principles of respecting county lines and urban integrity. This approach benefitted rural areas, towns, and urban centers.
Outside of partisans who have noted their unhappiness over the lines not being drawn in a way that specifically benefitted them, there has literally been no public derision of the way the latest legislative lines were drawn.
If they passed the muster of the Justice department for most liberal federal administration in my lifetime, the Obama Administration, I’m not sure why South Dakota Democrats have such a beef with it.
It takes an open process and closes it as it limits public input
Amendment T mandates 30 days public input for the redistricting committee…. the legislature’s redistricting committee in 2011 had SIX MONTHS of public input. Voters would have LESS say in redistricting under Amendment T.
Portions of Amendment T are clearly Unconstitutional.
Amendment T expressly notes that it does not allow ANY elected party or state officeholder to serve for 3 years prior to and 3 years after serving on the board. This renders it unconstitutional before the first letter is typed into law.
Remember South Dakota term limits? They don’t apply to federally elected candidates, because it’s unconstitutional. Amendment T has the same problem with its language when it bars anyone from running for office for three years after serving on the board.
In 2000 – The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a California residency rule for congressional candidates, deciding that a state cannot add requirements for federal office to those already set down in the U.S. Constitution. That portion of Amendment T would most certainly be struck down upon challenge, and other portions could potentially be challenged in other “right to run” lawsuits. (States and local districts may set their own qualifications, but unless these are closely aligned with those in the Constitution governing candidacies for high national office, such laws would be ripe for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge.)
Proponents aren’t exactly being forthright.
The proponents make misleading statements that 3 of the last 4 redistricting committees have been sued; the one in 2011 was NOT sued and so there has not been a lawsuit since 2001. And just because someone sues does not mean they are right.
..
I haven’t really said much about this measure to this point, because ultimately, redistricting isn’t a big deal, and the calls of gerrymandering are literally, a load of horse manure. Why do I have that opinion? Because of our large geographic area and sparse populations, you really can’t draw these lines other ways, and ultimately, it’s not going to change elections in South Dakota.
That being said, it’s offensive to have an unelected board appoint another unelected board to draw the lines of elections in the state – it borders on parody. And it shows how poorly drafted this measure is. What’s to stop the legislature from completely rewriting the election board makeup in the first place?
I could go on, but you get the point.
Amendment T is a solution looking for a problem. One that does not exist in South Dakota.
I think this one will pass. I don’t feel it is well written enough to pass but I understand why they want it and most likely why a majority of voters want this.
The biggest problem with the gerrymandering complaint is that Democrats were in the minority 14-21 in the senate going into the 2010 election and came out in the minority 5-30.
That’s not redistricting. Those are the same districts. It was Obamacare, Stimulus… Face it SHS won 66 of 66 counties in 2008 and in 2010 she lost.
Redistricting didn’t happen until the 2012 election.
The problem is that SD is losing Democrats and SD Democrats who are political are more like the Democrats in DC than SD. I’d say there is a big divide among Republicans now also. You are either a very conservative law maker (almost libertarian) or you are a big business Republican (in favor of public/private partnerships).
Times are changing in SD.
If there is no problem, then how was District 15 created?….. Were the Dems just lucky with that one or were the Reps just being nice?…….”Just Be Nice…..”
why do you say formerly known as Winston…an honest question I am not in the loop..please explain…thank you
there’s a perception that north rapid city was gerrymandered on purpose, regardless of whether its true or not. the district/ward lines are odd. just sayin’. these ballot items dont’ sprout from nowhere.
They sprout from Liberal havens and out of state Weiland is pushing all 3 of these horrible Measures T, V and 22 and his allies the unions are pushing 23….
If Republicans amount to almost half the registered voters in the State, why would they only be given 1/3 of the representation on this board? Why doesn’t the Green Party get any representation? Why doesn’t the Satanist party get representation? If the Democrats had more people registered as Democrats, yeah, they should get more representation, but not as things are. Why should the losers dictate terms?
Any parties can have representation. No party is guaranteed any number of representatives. There is only a limit on the maximum number from any one party. Drawing districts isn’t something you need to have representation matching the registration numbers. Districts should be non-partisan.
I think the point is that Democrats are pushing this amendment to our Constitution and could very easily get locked out of the process entirely because it is written so poorly.
Rhetorical question: Since when did trying to do things in violation from the Constitution stop Weiland/Samuelson & the Democrats?
This unelected unaccountable board is flawed from the get go–the proponents have been told but they were too far into the signature process to change it, so they have kept up their lie hoping no one will notice.
I went to a lecture where it was explained and was show the actual language of the amendment….novel concept I know….
It says that the 2 major parties of the state ( it does not say republicans and Democrats–which i think was dumb for Democrats to do…as they are continuing to lose members…if Independents formed a party…then could overtake Dems in time…but i digress)
get to NO MORE THAN 10 names each for consideration…..it does not say how these 10 GOP and 10 Dems willbe selected, by the party leadership, by anyone that puts their name in …nothing….then it says all others (ie in SD: Libertarians, Constitution Party, independents and non affiliated) get to submit 10 names….again their is no say how these 10 are picked……
So this is some of the details they left out…but it is PRESUMED that the Board of elections will first be tasked with selecting the 10 names that fit in each category….so you could have 10 GOP, 10 Dems , and then a whole host of combinations for the 3rd category of others (listed above).
Ok once that is completed the Board of Elections then can pick NO MORE THAN 3 per party…..
Ok who is the board of elections…well this board has 3 Republicans appointed, 3 Democrats appointed and one elected person, the Secretary of State , which we all know is a Republican now.
So it is a 4-3 Republican controlled board…..
So they could look at the 30 names and say we would pick 3 GOP, 3 Independents and 3 Libertarians…thanks for playing this is our board…..
Democrats are not getting any seats…or maybe we give them 1-2 token seats….
Or they could pick 3 GOP and 6 Independents (since they are not a party) or again pick 3 of Constitution party and 3 Libertarians.
This amendment makes the SOS office VERY important as a Democrat gets elected they could lock the GOP out of the process just as easily or an Independent wins lets just have 9 Independents and keep the 2 major parties out completely.
—-So despite the proponents saying it will be a 3 GOP, 3 Dem and 3 Ind board it likely will not be….also that is the same error the Nielson polling company made and I believe skews the poll…..
Be careful what you wish for in passing this Weiland…..you may get what you wrote but not necessarily what you wanted 🙂
If the Neilson Brother’s Poll is accurate, only the Vo-Tech Governance Amendment is likely to pass with the Pay Day Lender better than 50%-50%. The rest are going down, some big like this one.
I agree Nielson skewed the T poll with the inaccurate information about it….
As long as V goes down I’ll be happy