IM22 zealots keep missing an important point.

Pat Powers

From the Argus Leader:

About a dozen supporters of a voter-approved ethics law rallied in Pierre Tuesday to oppose its repeal.

And…

“We passed IM 22, we told the legislators what we wanted and now they’re turning around and saying that they’re going to take it away or that we didn’t know what we were voting for,” Doug Kronaizl, spokesman for Represent South Dakota, told the law’s backers. “It was pretty clear when we went to the polls what we wanted.”

Read that here.

Is it just me, or do IM22 zealots keep missing an important point in all of this?

Initiated Measure 22 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NO AMOUNT OF WHINING ABOUT IT OR IGNORING THE FACT IS GOING TO CHANGE IT! You were warned about it ahead of time, and a judge just underlined that fact.

Good gosh.

15 thoughts on “IM22 zealots keep missing an important point.”

  1. I read a DFP blog post this morning and Secretary of State Krebs’ proposal for an Ethics Commission has won him over if IM 22 is going down.

    Essentially I also agree with her proposal. If IM 22 does go down then it has to be replaced with something or Wieland will ram something constitutional down the throats of South Dakota’s legislature as a constitutional amendment. Then what?

    The legislature and Secretary of State’s office need to be proactive.

    1. “Wieland will ram something constitutional down the throats of South Dakota’s legislature “– Priceless– We don’t need nothing “Constitutional” in this state.. Next thing on the slippery slope is to have ethics, keep your “constitutional” and ethics OUT of S.D….

  2. PP you are absolutely right. These guys were warned that the law was unconstitutional and they still brought it as is. That is a message I don’t hear anywhere but on this blog.

    I’d like to see the legislature work with Secretary Krebs and enact a variation of her proposal that works for the people and is not unconstitutional.

    It’s a win for the people. It’s a win for the constitution and it’s a win for the legislature because they aren’t going to get a referred law and it’s a win for Rick Wieland because on some level he got some change.

  3. The people at the KELO 10:00 news did a four-plus-minute story on Monday night about the effort to defend IM 22 and the upcoming demonstration on Tuesday. They said nothing last night regarding the fact that only 13 people attended that demonstration. It was shameful!

  4. There is a teaching that the good I fail to do can be more serious than the bad I do.

    Kelo has for years seemed so convinced that “fair” is to highlight the opposition with regard to their quantity (i.e. 13 people), their honesty (Rick Weiland), their knowledge (Ricky Redux) or credibility on the issue (Rick again).

    What ends up happening is they don’t have any time left in their broadcast to give real news and information. I could care less they give 4 minutes to 13 angry dunderheads. I care they didn’t give four minutes to something meaningful like how much Rick is pulling down on these scams.

  5. On November 23, 2016, 25 Republican South Dakota legislators and other individuals filed a lawsuit challenging Measure 22 in state court in Pierre, South Dakota.[3][4] State Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett heard arguments for the case on December 8, 2016, and issued a preliminary injunction, putting the measure’s effects on hold temporarily.[5][6] On December 21, 2016, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) indicated that Judge Barnett issued an Order Enjoining and Declining Severability for the measure, preliminarily enjoining, or stopping, it in its entirety. Judge Barnett ruled that the entirety of the measure should be put on hold even though specific sections of it were discussed in the case.[7]

    https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Revision_of_State_Campaign_Finance_and_Lobbying_Laws,_Initiated_Measure_22_(2016)
    ————- Where does it say IM22 was found un–Constitutional?

      1. #!—Why did the links I posted not use the word “un-Constitutional? #2– Why did he not strike down the law instead of an “injunction”? #3– Why did he say he was passing it along to higher courts? #3– If this discussion were reversed and y’all posted the sources I posted and I posted something from twitter y’all would still be laughing… “twitter”? Really? Ain’t gonna work dude, compared the reputable sources….I know Mr. Mercer is under the weather— we wish him well..

        1. Twitter would seem to be an acceptable source when it’s directly quoting the judge. If his own words are not credible enough for you, then I’m not sure if anything is.

Comments are closed.