Attorney General Jackley Interprets South Dakota Constitution Requires Ballot Measure Sponsors to be SD Citizens

Attorney General Jackley Interprets South Dakota Constitution Requires Ballot Measure Sponsors to be SD Citizens

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that, in an answer to a question from the Secretary of State, that he interprets the State Constitution requires a sponsor of an initiated ballot measure to be a citizen of South Dakota.

In his letter to the Secretary of State, Attorney General Jackley recognized there is no explicit statue requiring a sponsor of an initiated measure to be a citizen of South Dakota. However, the South Dakota Constitution provides that a sponsor of a measure must be reserved to the “people.”

“My interpretation is that in 1889 our founding fathers were referring to ‘people’ in our Constitution as citizens of the State of South Dakota,” wrote the Attorney General.

The letter can be found here:

-30-

25 thoughts on “Attorney General Jackley Interprets South Dakota Constitution Requires Ballot Measure Sponsors to be SD Citizens”

  1. Gotcha. So out-of-state groups just have to hire an SD citizen to sponsor their proposals. Not too onerous a task to accomplish.

    1. Single subject rule. Harassing petitioners. Rescission of signatures. Increasing thresholds for passage. Now this. They have tried everything to keep YOU from voting on these issues directly.

      1. If it is important to South Dakotans and issue to be voted on solely by South Dakotans, then they can sponsor the petition. Not sure why this would be controversial.

        1. The rules should be spelled out in advance and be reasonable. What’s been happening recently is that these folks, afraid of losing, are trying to make the initiative process virtually impossible.

          1. Then critique the areas where they are doing that, not one that prevents the ballot process in South Dakota from being led by Florida retirees with too much free time and a hankering for Jesus during math.

  2. It’s what Big Tobacco 2.0 did with Marijuana. After that all that out of state money flooded into a cheap media market in South Dakota.

  3. Attorney General Jackley is going to be really disappointed when he learns that “the people” were never mentioned in Article III of the 1889 SD Constitution and only entered in 1898 when the constitutional amendment to create the initiative and referendum was passed by an affirmative vote of the voters. Admittedly, the voters in 1898 also rejected a women’s suffrage amendment, so clearly “our founding fathers” were being very clear about who “the people” are.

    Prior to the 1898 amendment, Art III, sec. 1 read:
    “The legislative power shall be vested in a legislature, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives.”

    See the Constitution and Chapter 39 (the amendment) in the 1898 SD Session Laws: https://sdsdl-montage.auto-graphics.com/#/item-details/entities_679?from=search-results

  4. Here we go again.

    They are trying to make it impossible to engage in the initiative process. They want the legislature to be unchallenged.

    Any newbie legislator can introduce legislation, but when “We the People” do so… they will make us go through a living hell. One challenge after another.

    Direct democracy scares them. Maybe it should.

    1. How are they trying to make the initiative process impossible by requiring a SD citizen to be a sponsor? Last I checked, the laws of South Dakota only apply in South Dakota. Why should someone who lives somewhere else have the right to change our laws? And if that out of state person wants, they certainly can still try to find a legislative sponsor for a bill and come and testify for it. There’s literally zero lost here for SD citizens. Stop making it seem like there is.

      1. Just another attempt to undermine the process. What’s the worst that can happen if an initiative is on the ballot? South Dakotans vote!! Stop fighting our right to decide whatever the hell we want to weigh in on.

        The voters choose the legislature, the governor and that governor chooses the Supreme Court. They decide our fate every day. Why are you so afraid to let us decide the issues directly?

        “Under God, the People Rule”. Do you know where you can find that quote?

        1. “What’s the worst that can happen if an initiative is on the ballot?”

          The worst thing is a bad law gets passed because people don’t know what they are voting on. They don’t have time to study 6-10 law changes while carrying on their regular lives. Some folks act like this is all a game and someone else will clean up the mess.

          Folks like you chastise the legislature on one hand for trying to limit direct democracy, and on the other you say the legislature will fix it if there’s a problem with the IM’s. Pick a lane!

          1. They don’t have time to study 6-10 candidates either. It’s not a perfect system.

            But when the legislature refuses to support majority opinion on an issue, an initiative is a great way to remedy that.

  5. We need to change the extremist nature of legislators in Pierre. They know they don’t represent the people, and it is scary. I don’t know how many stories I heard of this past session where people were contacted by their legislators after contacting them regarding bills and they were lied to or ignored. A simple solution is just to vote differently next time; checks and balances are not a bad thing.

    1. I mean ok, but to think you’re the only person contacting a legislator and everyone else in your discredit has the same view as you is extremely narcissistic.

  6. Instead of everyone ranting and demonizing people, can we not play constitutional experts and or have a knee jerk reaction based on our larger bias’?

    Does anyone think it good policy that non-South Dakotans or South Dakotans who haven’t even take the minimal effort to register to vote can initiate Initiatives or Constitutional Amendments?

    Does such a policy really substantially or make it “impossible to engage in the initiative process.”

          1. Maybe more people should become overgodders and then our state could give up the idea that we need to spend mega money on mental health counselors.

  7. when your idea is so bad you can’t find anyone in SD willing to sponsor it for you, it doesn’t belong on the ballot.
    People from other states wanting to make the taxpayers of South Dakota pay to defend some idiot unconstitutional measure in the courts are just trying to waste OUR money.

    You know that is what will happen if that prayer-in-public-schools thing passes. It won’t be the sponsor who has to pay to defend it, it’ll be us.

  8. Our governor, senators and congressman receive out-of-state donations. Maybe even Marty Jackley does. But we are supposed to ban outside influence when it comes to initiatives?

    What about measures that have already passed? Haven’t some of those been “sponsored” by out-of-state people/groups?

  9. Elk,

    How does only allowing South Dakota voters to initiate measures “make the initiative process virtually impossible” or adversely impact a South Dakota voter from bringing an initiated measure?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *