Attorney General explanations released for two proposed constitutional amendments to be circulated for 2020 Ballot

Pat Powers

ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLANATIONS RELEASED FOR TWO PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BE CIRCULATED OF 2020 BALLOT 

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg announced today that he has filed Attorney General explanations for two proposed constitutional amendments with the Secretary of State. The explanations were prepared after the sponsor submitted modified versions of similar amendments that were filed last year.

Each Attorney General explanation will appear on the petition that will be circulated by the amendment’s sponsor. The sponsor will need to obtain, for each proposal, 33,921 valid signatures, as determined by the Secretary of State, to place the amendment on the ballot for the November 2020 general election.

The proposed amendments are entitled:

  • An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution allowing people to buy, sell, or rent any property or
  • An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution requiring physical or monetary damage in order for conduct to be considered a violation of 

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and state constitutional amendments. The Attorney General explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed amendment.

You can read the explanations at:

https://atg.sd.gov/docs/AG%20Statement%20Amendment%20allowing%20people%20to%20buy%20sell%20or%20rent%20.pdf

and

https://atg.sd.gov/docs/AG%20Statement%20requiring%20physical%20damage.pdf

8 thoughts on “Attorney General explanations released for two proposed constitutional amendments to be circulated for 2020 Ballot”

  1. Ok, I read both of these and am confused. Who is bringing these forward? Even the explanation of the second is confusing.

    1. Outlaws victimless crimes and restrictions on the sale, use, etc of property. Drugs are “property” and to some a “victimless” crime. Wonder if its aimed at marijuana legalization?

    2. The second one will allow hunting out of season, as deer, pheasants etc aren’t going to file complaints.
      It will also allow the murder of unattached people who don’t have any friends or relatives who will miss them when they are gone. If nobody notices they’re dead, no charges will be filed.

  2. Prostitution, chelation therapy, assisted suicide are all services. For that matter, many services are only legal If the practitioner has a license. That could change.
    Drugs are property. So are animals: pets, livestock, endangered species, eagle feathers, pet turtles. I have two ivory necklaces my grandmother purchased in Africa a million years ago, when they were still legal. I might want to sell them on eBay.
    Whose idea was this?

    1. I think you should be allowed to have them, but just to clarify, are you saying that the ivory necklaces should be illegal for you to have, or just everyone else?

      Also there have been far more killings of wild animals since these bans were passed. If ivory weren’t banned, people in Africa would have been allowed to continue raising the animals instead of killing the wild ones. I doubt there is a huge market for eagle feathers and turtles but if there is couldn’t it be met more efficiently by raising the animals?

  3. So the second one really is interesting. If a victim is unable to file a complaint, say, because he’s dead, or unconcious, or only four years old, who has standing to file a complaint on his behalf?
    Can somebody kill his whole family and leave nobody behind with the standing to complain?

  4. These amendments were written to demonstrate the concept that nearly all crimes are only crimes against the state not other people.

    According to the LRC the victimless crime bill would actually nullify 93% of crimes. It means only 7% of crimes committed actually have a victim. That doesn’t include the much larger amount of people who are denied earning an income through a small business due to insurance requirements and other compliance costs.

    Each year there are more and more laws limiting our freedom. There are NEVER any less. This is the only way we have left to change it.

    It was written because I want my property to be my property. I want to be able to plant vegetables in my yard, add an addition onto my house, or sell hamburgers from my grill without over tens or hundreds of thousands in compliance costs. I want to be able to do with my body, my property, and my limited time on earth what I choose.

    It all comes down to a choice, would you rather be able to live your life how you want, or would you rather stop other people from living there lives how they want without harming you.

    Unfortunately for us as a society I’m afraid the answer could be the latter.

Comments are closed.