From the SDSU collegian, One of this year’s legislative interns has a insightful column as to why South Dakota had to repeal initiated measure 22. Well worth your read:
There is displeasure with the passing of House Bill 1069, which effectively repeals Initiated Measure 22. As an intern in Pierre, I had the benefit of seeing all sides of the issue as they were presented, and I’m so thankful our legislators repealed IM-22.
Random people from Massachusetts brought IM-22 forward, and used $1.7 million of out-of-state money to campaign for the measure, while only $600,000 of out-of-state money was brought in opposition of the measure, according to the Secretary of State’s website.
Law requires all donations more than $100 be reported to the Secretary’s Office, which includes the money from lobbyists to politicians and campaigns. One of the main arguments of IM-22 was to stop lobbyists from “secretly giving money to politicians,” which is already a law.
IM-22 was a 35-page mess. The Legislative Research Council told authors of the measure of mistakes: a date and reference correction in Section 39, removal of Section 42 because it’s already in statute and that the measure was likely to be found unconstitutional. They did not move to fix these issues.
Well done Baylee!
It had to be repealed because it was unconstitutional…end of story
Prove it..
“A lawsuit against it is now in the court system, where it is properly being scrutinized for constitutionality.”
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/local/tsitrian-lawmakers-seeking-to-save-themselves/article_1bb09f70-3b3b-5efb-934b-2261018fdc97.html
“As a consequence, we will never know if the measure is unconstitutional as the case has been effectively thrown out along with the voter-approved legislation.”
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial/ours-lawmakers-must-earn-voters-trust/article_9933d832-4cdf-56c3-8061-cef6caf14e3c.html
Two OPINION pieces are not proof of anything, other than that person’s opinion. The legislature is working to address the issues the people thought they were fixing with IM 22, while getting rid of the problematic and unconstitutional areas of IM 22. I would think you would be happy, but of course not. Maybe you should just take a chill pill or a walk or something to cool off.
Sen. Lance Russell didn’t buy it. He pointed out that judges in South Dakota’s Supreme Court should have ruled on the issue of constitutionality so we could have guidance on what parts of IM 22 were good to go and what parts needed work.
——————
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/local/frank-carroll/carroll-highs-lows-of-legislative-session/article_2803e72d-c9f6-5ade-9e06-5dca4c97cdcf.html
IM 22’s opponents claim the law has been declared unconstitutional by a judge. This is untrue. No judge has made a final declaration that any provisions of the Act are unconstitutional, a fact even admitted to by repeal proponents.
—————-
http://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/voices/2017/02/01/voice-falsehoods-drive-plot-repeal/97337844/
You people are still pushing the lie that IM22 was found by a court to be unConstitutional? I do not think willful ignorance is an excuse———A lie is a lie..
Jaa Dee how many times do we have to point to Judge Barnett’s own words….that it was unconstitutional…are you really that ignorant? oh wait…
Republicans would be best served to let this die a quiet death. Instead of constantly rubbing it in voters noses. I’m almost embarrassed that the establishment is so desperate that they push some naïve college kids article.
The damage is done. These limp efforts do more harm.
Any tyrant and their supporters can create reasons the will of the people should mean no more than a flea fart….
Someone should fund a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment with the South Dakota Supreme Court on the question as to whether a law under the review and custody of the highest court in the land (state) can be repealed at the same time by an equal branch of government, thus making the other branch, the judicial system, and it’s duties not only moot but abridged by the legislative branch in violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a “checks and balances” understanding.
Because without this issue being resolved, I am afraid we have empowered the legislative branch with the current affairs evolving around IM 22 with the ability to negate any potential Supreme Court decision with a pre-emptive legislative capability that allows it to potentially maintain an underdevelopment of a law to their own benefit out of fear of other possible consequences from a pending Supreme Court ruling or rulings.
Such a practice by the legislative branch undermines judicial review and its place in a republic in my opinion, and places the judicial branch in subjugation to the legislative branch.
It is one thing for a majority within a legislative branch to not like a Supreme Court opinion, which might result in a repeal of the law that was reviewed as long as it is political feasibility to do so in context to a new court ruling, but it is a totally different reality when you allow the legislative branch to game our democratic institutions at the expense of an equal branches right to exercise its role, its duty, and its just placement of equal footing within our state’s constitutional government, as took place with IM 22 and the political timing, which tactically was used with the Circuit Court’s initial decision and then the Legislature’s repeal of that initiative.
Once the Supreme Court had the law before it, I believe it had custody of that laws shelf life with exclusivity until its ruling, and this reality is analogous to a pending court case and its relevant laws, either civil or criminal, which cannot constitutionally be legislated away once the lawsuit has been commenced due to the ex post facto amendment of the state constitution, which states, “No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making any irrevocable grant of privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed.”
clearly you don’t know the law
I am open to constructive criticism…. (?)
So the democrats push a clearly unconstitutional bill…34 pages in length which few read and its the Legislature and Court’s fault that they overturned it….PLEASE
The comments are a pointless rehashing of water-under-the-bridge. And does anyone really care what an east coast person (Jaa Dee) thinks of says? Tell a lie often enough on this blog and maybe a few folks will begin to believe it. I for one completely ignore Daa Dee – I see the name and scroll past it – life is too short to give one second’s thought or worry to the ramblings of an east coast person trying to influence life in South Dakota.
What’s important about this article, IMO, is it was written by South Dakota college student in a South Dakota college newspaper. It shows her insights and critical thinking skills from the perspective of a college journalist. She gives us older South Dakotans “hope” in her generation.
I agree: everyone should simply ignore Jaa Dee’s posts. If people stop responding to her idiocy, she will stop posting it. She needs the attention so badly that she will turn her efforts elsewhere. Perhaps, that will be her own state.
I didn’t vote for IM22 and told as many people as I could the reasons why while encouraging a no vote and was surprised when it passed. Having said that I wish the Governor/legislators would have waited for it or parts of it to be ruled unconstitutional. Again in my opinion, if it would have happen this way it would have helped not letting something like this to ever happen again as well as showing how out of state interests really don’t have our interest at heart.