Amendment C continues to be in the spotlight today, as we have the “Con” Statement for the Constitutional Amendment C for your review and discussion, as opponents take their opportunity to throw darts at the measure which would place a higher vote threshold on ballot measures which would raise your taxes:
The ballot measure proposes to place the same vote requirements on tax-raising ballot measures that the state legislature has placed on itself.
It’s a bit melodramatic to claim that it gives out-of-state lobbyists and special interests more power.. when the out-of-state groups are the ones who have been inflicting a lot of these ballot measures on South Dakota.
If anything, It’s probably long overdue.
Why not let the people decide? Why have minority rule?
Because too many people don’t read the ballot measures before they vote on them. They don’t even read the brief statements printed on the ballots which occasionally explain that a given measure will not survive a constitutional challenge or state how much a measure is going to cost them. They vote according to misleading advertising they saw onTV.
You could, seriously, craft an initiated measure which would require the state treasurer to cut you an annual check for a million dollars, hide it under several pages of arcane text, buy some misleading advertising about how it’s a philanthropic measure, and people would vote for it.
Lots of truth here, which helps explain why they make fools of themselves by manipulating language into something completely insane. That’s the go to play in the playbook because they know it works. That’s why I always say they think we are all morons.
Disagree, you have no proof to these radical claims, you are only a sore loser.
I think we saw what happens when the mob votes on hot topics such as Amendment A, they dont educate themselves enough to understand if its constittutional or not.
This isn’t constitutional either by the same standards. It addresses taxes and spending. That is 2 topics. I look forward to it being struck down.
Mike, you should do your research, Amendment C has more subjects than amendment A did. Learn the state constitution already.
AMEMDMENT C only has 1 Topic — REVENUE
Any ‘appropriation bill” to create a Revenue Program must also be accompanied within the same measure with a Financing Mechanism.
Hence – Article 11 is REVENUE & FINANCE
REVENUE is the “SUBJECT” – that is how you argue in the courts, and that is how supporters of the Amendment will win in the courts.
I ‘read’ the state constitution every day, I know full well what it says and what it dont say. I am one of the few state citizens who has read the constitution, and I read it everyday.
Also note: trying to say “Taxes and Fees” are a separate subject from each other, will not win in a court room. “Taxes and Fees” are one in the same. And in the entire concept of Article 11 – Revenue and Finance go together as one topic.
TAXES:
EXCISES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS (ALL TAXES)
Excise Taxes = is paid to government by citizens who participate in Commercial Activities such as Energy, Natural Gas, Fuel, Sale of Property
DUTIES = are paid by the citizens to government to fund ‘services’ provided by the government, paid by the ‘users’ of the service. Hence, “User Fees”.
IMPOSTS – are paid to government by citizens who transact with other citizens, examples are: licenses, permits, transaction fees, tariffs, patents, etc. They fund General Administration Costs of the government.
TAXES AND FEES is a broad term. But TAXES are defined as Excises, Duties, and Imposts.
To the “Conpronents” please state who these “Out of state” supporters are. Also, in my opinion, throwing the term “Unconstitutional” without a reference or proof is the same as calling someone a “something-ist” as a blanket response because you don’t agree with that person and don’t have a valid argument.
It is not so much about outside lobby firms coming into our state placing these things on our public ballots, but people are doing so to circumvent our governing process. Not to make this about one party or the other, cause both parties have their issues, but Democrats have no voice in the legislature cause for some odd reason or another they cannot convince the citizens in all but maybe 9 of the 35 districts to vote for them, let alone vote on their policies. So the only way for Democrat Party members to get their agendas thru South Dakota is to force it upon a public vote, where they know they only need 51% rather than 60% required of them in the Legislature. There is a reason “WE” want tax and spending appropriation bills to be verd to achieve, it is cause ‘we’ want to protect our right to be free Americans, to pay the least amount of tax as possible, and when you the voter want to force upon the majority of our citizens, obligations to increase our spending, then that means we are going to have to increase our tax rates, or at the very least, we would have to cut back spending on education, roads, our current health programs in the state such as the “Free’ Public Health care Clinics, etc. Most importantly, if you want to ‘tax’ me more, then I want a rule imposed on the voter to obtain 60% of the voters to show proof that a greater majority of this state may or may not support such act. I like Amendment C mainly its going to help STOP the atempt for the voters to usher in a State income tax more than anything.
Please read the book called “Wealth of States” by Arthur Laffer and Stephen More, and here you will find the basis for Amendment C.
A State prospers where its citizens are taxed the least as much as possible, this allows people to keep their hard earned income, enough to provide for their Life, Liberty, Property, and Prosperity.
And Amendment C only has 1 Subject — REVENUE. The topic is “revenue”. If you want to adopt a measure to obligate the state to $10,000,000 million a year more, then you also must present in the same appropriation bill a “Financing Mechanism” (taxes or fees) to provide the source of the revenue to pay for the program. ONE SUBJECT.
Exactly what South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 11 is all about “Revenue and Finance”
The legislature can easily change or suspend their rules but a minority would control voters options
Personally I have no opinion on this amendment. But the fact that this even made the ballot in June is just ridiculous. It has almost zero chance of standing even if it passes. Just like amendment A. So shady
I don’t think “no opinion” means what you think it means.
Trojan horse. It’s an anti-democratic effort disguised as fiscal restraint.
Legislators don’t care for a majority of us regular folks getting in their way. This is just the latest example. They know that a lot of measures include tax provisions and this will stop almost all of those in their tracks.
A majority vote is fine for the election of legislators, is it not? Don’t give away your right to decide.
The only purpose of this amendment is to stop Medicaid which South Dakota desperately needs but our legislature doesn’t care about South Dakotans only their own politics.
That’s right.
Do we turn down federal dollars for farmers? How about small business? Roads and bridges? Disaster aid?
What makes medicaid expansion different? I believe that 3/4 of states are participating.
You would have to have “rocks in your head ” to vote to weaken your future votes. Or at least to write this bill.
Let us be real and remember the heinous measures initiated previously. This would make it so only 41% of sane people in South Dakota would be needed to block the insaner, out-of-state dark-money initiated measures. It would be harder for the out-of-state dark-money masses to hoodwink the ignorant voters easily swayed by spiffy teevee commercials.
If you want a law, bring a law bill through the legislatures. Then you only need the number of votes needed there. Stop initiating measures and measures like this won’t be needed.
I agree with your logic, but I argue the basis of only using the legislature to adopt laws. While I agree, most laws should go thru the legislature, but people like YOU and MYSELF have the right to Draft Legislation ourself, have an Attorney codify it in a legal format, and then we have the right to go out and meet with the citizens by holding Town Hall Events in each of the 35 Districts, or at least in no less than 60% of the Districts (21 of 35). IF the people would do this, and have that public discussion in at least 2/3 of the districts by holding public gatherings used to educate, inform, discuss, and allow the people to make changes to your proposed law, “WE” are perfectly fine.
But this is not occuring, to often than not, people are simply hanging out in 10 large cities, on public parking lots collecting signatures, while skipping the one most important step – PUBLIC DEBATE.
That is why I support AMENDMENT C – forcing the voters to get 60% of the typical 450,000 voters that genuinely show up at the polls to vote yes, This means 270,000 people are necessary to approve the legislation in public elections, and still that is only 30% of the total State Population. So a very small mob of people who will now trap 887,000 people to a massive revenue/finance package that either will raise their taxes, create a new tax, or cut current government programs, services, or benefits.
Then, what happens, where the “PEOPLE” the NO VOTERS collective refer the measure back to a second vote or to a court room and it is put down by 2nd Opinion, are those YES voters gonna protest that decision?
IF peolple understand their role of going to the polls- all they are doing is voting yes or no to provide a 1st Opinion of what the Majority of Citizens may or may not want. End of day, it still comes down to the “Consent of the Governed” – the peoples right to refuse to be governed as such.
But, rightfully – cause “WE” do not trust the people to debate the issues, discuss, and inform the entire state population, “WE” now want to impose a 60% RULE on the voters themselves to gain a Far Greater Public Opinion of the People.
Vote YES on C
Always appreciate DWC being a no BS fly zone.
What are you smoking?
So is the subject of this constitutional amendment about:
1. taxes
2. a 60% vote is the new majority
3. constitutional amendments
4. state statues
5. $10 million dollars (does it change with inflation over time?)
There are so many subjects in this constitutional amendment, as a typical South Dakotan, I can’t keep up. Also, if things still pass with 60%, will Schoenbeck change this to 70%? We saw medical marijuana pass with 70%, maybe we should go to 75% to keep it safe and only let the inner party make changes in Pierre. People should not have the ability to govern themselves in this state.
I’m going to laugh so effing hard when this is invalidated based on the single subject ruling.
It’s a terrible measure but I’m going to vote yes on it just so I can see it ruled unconstitutional later.