I guess they didn’t learn their lesson last time when South Dakotans told them they wanted full disclosure on the election ballot, not less.
Because former Tim Johnson staffer Drey Samuelson has submitted a possible Constitutional Amendment for circulation possibly to be placed on the South Dakota 2018 election ballot:
Supporter Drey Samuelson said Friday that they hope to start gathering signatures in August to put the proposed amendment to a vote. It would create nonpartisan primary elections for legislative candidates, remove their party labels from the ballot and establish an independent commission to redraw state legislators’ districts.
The proposal shares similarities with two constitutional amendments that voters rejected in 2016. Samuelson says the Legislature is unpopular among voters, who are ready for a change.
Here’s the proposed party-hiding amendment as reviewed by the Legislative Research Council. Just as previous amendments were proposed by Slick Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson’s organization leading up to the last election, it’s just a mess, awash in a sea of red-ink corrections by the State Legislative Research Council:
2018 CA NonPartisanElectionsRedistrictingLegis LRCComments by Pat Powers on Scribd
Ignoring the policy issues that were rejected by voters in the last election, the Legislative Research Council’s letter does a good job in pointing out the many, many technical flaws that the measure contains:
The proposed constitutional amendment includes elements from two previous constitutional amendment proposals considered in the 2016 general election . The combination of the subjects from the two proposed amendments may not comply with the related subject matter as required in S.D. Const. Art. XXIII, § 1.
The draft of the initiated constitutional amendment submitted to this office is not written in a clear and concise manner and does not conform to the form and style of other sections of the constitution. Parts of the proposed amendment are better suited for statute.
and..
Furthermore, section 7 conflicts with section 8 of the proposed constitutional amendment as submitted to our office. Section 7 proposes to amend S.D. Const. Art. Ill, § 5 and section 8 proposes to repeal the same section.
and..
Section 37 appears to require redistricting in 2019 and 2020 and does not provide for redistricting in 2021. Redistricting is a time consuming and costly use of resources. The redistricting requirements for 2019 and 2020 would be based on 2010 census data and would only apply to one election. This requirement appears to be an unnecessary use of state resources. Since there would not be an appropriation to fund the commission in FY 2019, the commission may have to wait FY 2020 to begin the redistricting process. The commission must purchase redistricting software and comply with the Voting Rights Act requirements. You should consider eliminating the 2019 redistricting requirement. The requirement to redistrict again in 2020 is nonsensical. Redistricting should be required for 2021.
Oy. Like the prior proposals coming out of the Weiland/Samuelson shop, it’s just a mess. Or we might term it just the first pile of manure to hide their party that Democrats are trying to shovel on to South Dakota Voters.
The first thought that crossed my mind in reading his red-ink filled proposal and LRC’s letter is “I wonder how much this cost the tax-payers?”
As part of the ballot initiative reform process, perhaps legislators should consider adopting legislation that requires the person submitting the proposal to LRC pay for LRC’s time. If Mr. Samuelson wants to change the constitution, there is a process to do so – which he is engaging – but the taxpayers should not have to pay for his lack of experience to bring forward his idea.
The cost to initiate any ballot proposal should be born upon the person bringing it forward, IMO.
So then next time you’re behind some unconstitutional abortion or transgender ballot measure, will you be paying to defend it in court, Fred?
Doesn’t speak to the issue 9:35. In fact, I am chairing a committee to oppose the Physician Assisted Suicide measure and am currently involved in fundraising efforts. I’m not asking the state to pay for my work – no more than the proponents of a measure should be able to have the state to pay for their work. If you believe in something enough to want to put it on the ballot, do your homework and write a properly crafted bill. South Dakota taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill.
Speaks directly to the issue, Fred. It costs money to defend the unconstitutional crap you come up with in court. Will you be offering to pay it next time it comes up?
10:34 – maybe you can clarify exactly what bills you are referring to. Since I’ve had the privilege of serving as South Dakota Right to Life President, we’ve passed many pro-life bills but none have been challenged. None have been taken to court, and none ruled unconstitutional.
That said, our efforts have been fruitful. South Dakota has the lowest per capita rate of abortions in the US.
Anon 9:35 – Life is a right covered in the constitution, the 14th amendment to be exact. I can see how easy it was for Mr. Deutsch to school you.
KM, the 14th Amendment applies to “persons.” A fetus is not a “person” simply because you declare it to be.
Is an acorn an oak tree?
Anon 10:37 – That’s getting old. Let me guess, you’re a blob of cells believer. You’re right, a blob of cells with eyes, ears, a heartbeat…. A fetus is a baby, a “person”. A mother who gets an abortion knows they are killing their child. Are you aware of the pain women endure after having an abortion? Physical? Mental? Emotional? Life is a right!
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer can get charged with two homicides. In other words, the unborn baby is legally considered a person. If a baby is born at six months , it can live, ie is a person. But if it is aborted at six months, is alive but is set aside to die, how is it then not a person?
Is a fetus an acorn?
Sibson – According to the Dems (and some Reps), a fetus is nothing but a clump of cells. So, we could call it anything we want except a baby, that’s considered a trigger.
Why are they so embarrassed to be Democrats?
(I know, I know, rhetorical question.)
Attention legislators! Look at how other states handle ballot initiatives. Apparently SD is much easier to get these things on the ballot than most states. Address the root cause of this mess PLEASE!
Here is how stupid the Democrats pushing this strategy are:
1). They can’t get elected as Democrats because of the disconnect between the East/West Coast ultra-liberal values/priorities promoted by their national leadership and the values/priorities of South Dakotans of all stripes. It’s a brand problem.
2). Yet, whoever wants to run for even local legislative races in their primaries must conform and focus on these above “Coast ultra-liberal” positions. Not to mention all the attention their main blog spends spinning everything he can against Trump and Republicans while not realizing half the time he is offending everyone who isn’t a wacko extreme liberal.
I don’t even have to touch on the lunacy of their diversion of their scarce resources to ballot matters.
Troy,
Did you get banned over at their main spin blog or did he edit it to change what you posted? If not, that is next.
My sympathy goes out to any moderate and reasonable Democrat that is a candidate or considering running for office here in South Dakota.
* If they mention how important their faith in God is important to them and how it has helped them thru tough times and shaped them into the person they are today they will get slammed by their main spin blog.
* If they just happen to have a high rating with the NRA they most likely will get slammed on that.
* If they are not for drug legalization they could be called a racist which is thrown out casually for anyone who does not completely agree on many things.
* If they support law enforcement where a person charges at them out of a building with a gun or knife with split seconds for that officer to react after they were told to drop the weapon and that person is shot and killed they could be slammed for that. One would think that would be a case of suicide by cop.
* If it is slow day for postings you could find your name on a blog posting that you were involved in some new scandal which you knew nothing about nor had any association but it added clicks to the site.
Those moderates who are probably well established and highly respected in their communities will need to distance themselves from the toxic spin blog and those who offend every day. It is like watching replays of a train wreck over and over and is a state political party in what is supposed to be the main opposition party.
Miranda,
True story. Because a person opposing abortion and marriage only between a man and woman, Cory and several of his regulars said they find this position an offensive interest in the sex lives of others and thus apppropriate to call such people “sex offenders.”
I don’t care what names they call me but I find their willingness to equate political differences with sex with minors either an indication:
1). They don’t find such sex with minors very offensive since they have dialogued with me for years. For this reason, I would never leave them alone with a minor.
2). Or they are trying to criminalize political disagreement like tyrants do. For this reason, dialogue with tyrants is dangerous.
In either case, people like that are too deranged with whom to have a conversation.