South Dakota GOP Chairman Dan Lederman in support of Amendment C
The South Dakota Republican Party urges Republicans across the state to vote “Yes” on Amendment C in the upcoming primary election. As Republicans, we believe in the conservative principles of low taxes and limited government. Everyone should agree that it should be a hurdle to raise the amount of money the government takes from our wallets, using it to create more government in South Dakota. That is why the South Dakota Republican Party State Central Committee unanimously voted to pass a resolution in support of Amendment C.
Amendment C upholds our conservative principles by requiring 60% of voters to agree on ballot measures that raise taxes or spend more than $10 million. The South Dakota Republican Party supports the Taxpayer Protection Amendment.
The South Dakota Republican Party’s hard work to build an overwhelming advantage on voter registration, maintain strong majorities in the state legislature, and hold all statewide offices has helped make South Dakota a model for the nation with our fiscal responsibility. This has been made possible by our Republican values, but also the existing common-sense protections against higher taxes already in South Dakota law. For example, in the legislature there is already a 2/3 (67%) vote requirement in both chambers to pass tax hikes and create new government spending programs. This existing protection for taxpayers in South Dakota has helped prevent the high taxes and runaway spending that have destroyed blue states. However, South Dakota’s fiscal responsibility and your wallet are still vulnerable on the ballot.
Currently, tax hikes and new big government spending programs can pass with a vote of only a simple majority (50.01%) on the ballot. Without the protection of Amendment C, the Democrat Party and far-left special interests from California, Massachusetts, or Washington DC can bypass the elected legislature and raise your taxes.
The Left’s best chance to raise taxes, grow government, and change the South Dakota way of life is by dumping millions of dollars into ballot measure campaigns, with hopes that only a simple majority of those who show up at the polls to vote can be convinced to raise taxes and grow government for everyone else. Amendment C will require that these ballot measures must receive a 60% vote in order to pass. A 60% vote to pass tax hikes and new spending programs brings the ballot measure process more in line with our elected legislature’s 67% vote requirement.
The inflation caused by the Biden Administration is hurting South Dakotans at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and in every other aspect of our lives. Our budgets are being stretched to their limits, and we cannot afford higher taxes. Passing Amendment C is June would be a historic victory for Republicans and show that hardworking South Dakotans are sick and tired of the tax-and-spend policies of Washington D.C.
We need to protect South Dakota and your pocketbook from these radical policies. We need the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. You can vote “Yes” on Amendment C today. Early voting runs through June 6th and Election Day is Tuesday, June 7th.
Nothing but BS. Republicans don’t believe that voters can make wise decisions. They may be true when you consider the make-up of our legislature.
Might you be referring to some of the Republican legislators being the voters you are referring to? If so, I agree based on some of their voting records as compared to the Republican platform they are supposed to be following.
Great write up! Adding protections from tax increases by making it a bit more difficult to tax and spend our money is a no brainer.
Dan Lederman writes: “The Left’s best chance to raise taxes, grow government, and change the South Dakota way of life is by dumping millions of dollars into ballot measure campaigns…”
Sounds scary, right?
But what I hear is… Let us take this right to vote away from you. You, the people of South Dakota, can’t be trusted to keep taxes down. So we will require a 60 percent threshold for you to do that.
Well, Dan. I’m good. I don’t need your help. I actually like having the right to decide. And if a majority vote is sufficient for legislative and gubernatorial elections – it’s adequate as well for the issues that concern South Dakota citizens. The truth is, you are afraid of the public overriding the legislature, aren’t you?
And then there’s the irony of it. You want a simple majority in a low-turnout primary election to erase the power of the majority. You would ignore the will of up to 59.99% of voters in all future elections so the legislature can go unchecked.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Well said.
Additionally, the argument about needing 2/3 vote to raise taxes in the Legislature is misplaced. The Legislature is a representative democracy and is supposed to speak on behalf of the people, but the Founding Fathers recognized at times the Legislature may not vote directly reflective of the people they’re elected by. Therefore, they added this check and balance against increased taxes to protect the people. However, if the people are directly voting on an issue, the check and balance isn’t necessary, and in fact, is obstructing the will of the people. The people should be allowed to directly decide an issue with a simple majority, even if it raises taxes. That’s a true (direct) democratic (small “d”) process.
Furthermore, the Legislature should continue to be required to have a 2/3 majority to increase taxes because, by its very nature, the Legislature is not a direct democratic process, but is a representative democratic process. The Legislature is one layer removed from the people. A vote of the people is not the same as a vote of the Legislature and should not require 60% to pass. Vote No on Amendment C.
Bad information. The 2/3rds vote by the Legislature was adopted twice by a vote of the people in support of constitutional amendments. One adopted in the late ’80’s and the second approved by the voters in the early nineties.
Just thought everyone should know where the 2/3rds for the Legislature came from.
I don’t often agree with Elk but he’s spot on here.
Amendment C should be called the “SD Voters are too Stupid to be Trusted” act.
This 60% BS has been discussed for years. The response that was given from those that funded Marcy’s Law in 2016 was if it meant they needed 60%, they would have gotten that, just a different target. This is a slippery slope, next will the inner party propose 70%, then what after that?
We get it, we understand you love power and never want to give it up. However, in this state, the intent is the people rule. How much of this can you all continue to fight? How much more power do you need?
No one should ever vote to lessen the votes of other residents of SD or themselves.
Absolutely voting No on this multi-subject garbage.
All the dems want is the ability to vote tax increases easier.
All the repubs want is to make your vote less valuable, this is 4/5th of a vote.
3/5 = 60%
Give us more power! It’ll be good for you, we promise!
Tokers bad! Government great! Give government nore power!
Time is a flat circle.
We don’t need to hold ourselves hostage to the minority mixed nut of yahoos Howard-Pischke-Tapio-Haugaard-Nelson.
Amendment C is based on an ill-informed and short-sighted fantasy. The supermajority system is driving our corrections system, K-12 system, and higher ed system into disfunction because a minority of selfish morons can’t figure out that you can’t maintain your local school system or a penitentiary with less money and more work for remaining employees indefinitely. Norquistian fantasies aren’t enough to keep the state functional, and there’s too many in the GOP who don’t get that.
Lederman should know better, but he’s more concerned about winning that governing effectively. If he believes this is the way, he could at least drive to Centerville, Alcester, Gayville, and half of NE SD and explain to everyone why their local school district should consolidate with a larger neighbor, explain to the remaining correctional employees why they should work the hours of two jobs with the compensation and benefits of one, and own the outcomes of his policies. That would, however, require a degree of self-awareness that most of the SDGOP leadership seems to willingly lack.
{ Howard-Pischke-Tapio-Haugaard-Nelson. }
If you are talking about Neal Tapio and Stace Nelson, I don’t see their names on the list of legislators for SD.
Your emotionalism is getting pretty old.
Looks like there are a lot of liberals commenting here who want it to be easier to tax and spend people’s money. I think it should be harder to take people’s hard earned money from their own pockets. I’ll vote the Republican position and vote yes on C.
Agreed!
I don’t trust tokers either. Vote Yes on C!
Odd that the DaToker Bloggings endorse Amendment C too. The tokers don’t trust themselves? I don’t blame them.
You must live a very boring and uneventful life to spend time telling lies in blog comments.
I remember the initiative and referendum system being a good thing for South Dakota voters and talking about how we were one of the first states in the nation to have it. I guess no one cares about that anymore.
It’s been abused and hijacked by out of state interests and their paid shills in SD. IM 26 and Amendment A are a perfect example.
I mean, the majority of voting South Dakotans wanted them, and it wasn’t particularly close. Are voters too dumb to make their own decisions now? Can they still elect their representatives, or should we take a hard look at that too?
Who do you think is funding the push for Amendment C? The only time out of state money is a problem is when the ruling class disagree with what they are pushing.
Marsy’s Law as one example.
Amendment C is homegrown, drafted, written, codified by the S.D legiaute after periods of long debate. It was voted on my the very people elected by the voters of each kf the voting districts, 35 of them. If you were to take a poll in each district, one would see that the vast majority of the people support Amendment C. An out of state group called Americans for Prosperity has latched onto the cause for lower taxes and signed on to support the movement to restrict the right of minority groups to increase tax rates. By doing this, they can promote S.D’s laws to the rest of the country in its fight to hold the federal govr accountable to the states.
Except these minority groups still need the majority of voters. So, again, are voters just too dumb to know what they are voting for?
Homegrown, like marijuana? The very people who the voters elected, don’t represent those that voted for them. Furthermore, when you reference minority groups, you mean 59.9% of the population, that would be the new “minority” in the state for you and your flawed logic.
Tony, you are arguing with a proven bigot. The day he ever runs for office, I’ll have every one of his bigoted statements on billboards throughout his entire district.
I wish this went beyond initiated measures and applied to all elections. South Dakota voters are too stupid to make good decisions. Only white men and landowners should vote.
No wonder you sign your post “Anonymous”. We don’t know if there’s a whole Conestoga full of you “Anonymousans” or if there’s only one of you!
When it comes to those three items of taxes, fees and obligating $10M of public monies, why wouldn’t you want the people to approach the standard we hold our legislature to? There is a lot of misinformation and lack of information being thrown at the public on this ballot item. Whatever happened to the “Pros” & “Cons” in clear concise language from AG? We keep adding districts to metropolitan areas of SD and it won’t matter because they will have swing votes in legislature. Letting 9.9% of uneducated ill informed voters decide a state income tax or fees for campaigns is not healthy. Clearly defining “majority” in these specific instances as 60% isn’t all bad. Especially when some of the crap on our ballots lately shouldn’t have ever been allowed having multiple facets up for one vote. I’m normally a majority rules type but when it comes to taking more of my money by taxes and fees or using over $10M of public money it had better be a sure thing, a 60% sure thing.