Judge Kornmann issued his ruling today with regards to Initiated Measure 24 which was passed by voters in the 2018 election, as he declares the measure which limited campaign finance for ballot measures to South Dakota residents only as unconstitutional.
IM24 Opinion and ORDER by Pat Powers on Scribd
As noted in the ruling:
IM 24 is unconstitutional because it violates First Amendment rights to engage in political speech and to associate with others to fund political speech. IM 24 is also unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause by interfering with the free flow of money between persons or entities from another state and ballot questions committees in South Dakota. Attorney fees and costs, both statutory and non-statutory, should be awarded in both cases, all of which items will be determined later by the Court.
More to come on this…
Good news. A win for Cory and Marty and a loss for Ravnsborg and Mickelsen.
I think we all knew this was unconstitutional.
Cory should get the credit….gosh I hate saying that
Marty came late to the party to get attorney fees…
Ravnsborg had to defend it as he got stuck with it by winning the election.
Mickelson is the big loser as he is the one that championed it. However, he is out of politics and I don’t see him coming back.
Mostly ho hum…moving along news
I’m glad Marty was involved. The judges opinion actually relied on Marty’s arguments, not the arguments from the initial complaint.
I don’t like paying attorney fees for 2 lawsuits…it is clearly unnecessary
The former Gov and his chief were all in on this. They don’t deserve a pass at the expense of mickelsons.
No, Cory should not get the credit… There was a well-organized group that were ready to go to court. Cory rushed it through so he could get ahead of them and try to claim the credit.
must have been a SLOW group…Cory was in for weeks before Marty
The only remaining question is whether the state will appeal the decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope not, as the district court judge drove at least three separate stakes through the heart of this law. It has been found to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, on Commerce Clause grounds, and on Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment) grounds.
The state knows this was a lost cause, no way they appeal and waste more taxpayer money.
It was a lost cause from the beginning. I wouldn’t sign the petition because I knew it would be tossed, even if the majority of emotion-controlled signators were conned into signing.
Kornmann’s ruling reads like a Democrat party plan. He justifies throwing this out because the voters have put the GOP in power for 25+ years. No deference to the people at all.
Serious?!? Why are we always so quick to toss aside the constitution? THAT is the typical play of democratic socialists.
40+ years.
I don’t think he decided the Equal Protection issue. But two good stakes. This was wrong from the start. Voters/taxpayers need to pay attention to these ballot issues or get used to paying for their consequences
Voting with your gut is expensive, see this one and Marcy’s law
it wouldn’t be as expensive if the 2 firms waive their attorney fees…but nothing like greedy trial lawyers jumping on to get a quick payday
Not sure how you can call being paid fior service, in this instance, service to the Constitution, as “greedy”. Try that argument with Walmart the next time you shop there. Do the Bernie Sanders thing and call the Corp greedy as you walk out with a cart full of goods you don’t want to pay for. Still, in America, most of us don’t have that communist view of goods and services
Education would be cheaper if teachers just waived their fees.
Hospitals would be cheaper if nurses just waived their fees.
If workers weren’t so darn greedy, life would be free. 🤣
Heidelberger was alredy suing Marty et al jumped in to get a payday…it will be interesting to compare the bills of both since Cory was in for weeks and Marty was not
want to bet that Marty’s bill is twice Cory’s attorney bill?
It’s legit to examine and dispute attorney’s fees. Maybe the fees submitted are too high. Perhaps someone inflated the number of hours worked or charged in excess of his or her usual hourly rate. I’ve seen cases where expert witness fees were exorbitant and cases with unreasonable/ astronomical travel expenses. Folks deserve to be paid for work performed, provided bills are honest and correct.
While I recognize that out of state money is very often (usually?) counter productive, I wish this ballot measure had never been submitted. I agree with the Court’s disposition. No need for appeal.
Marty and a group of plantiffs were working on the plan, and were about to file the suit. Cory knew that, but jumped in hurriedly so he could try to claim the credit.
So Marty got outfoxed by Cory…that is a worse headline
It’s interesting that anyone thinks that Americans for Prosperity, Tom Barnett, and the Chamber of Commerce would have the same arguments as Corey Heidelberger.
Not for nothing, but if I was fighting the Constitutionality of a law, I wouldn’t leave my faith with Dakota Free Press. And Marty didn’t solicited this lawsuit, I’m sure. Those parties likely came to him.
Don’t begrudge a working man for making money fighting something so clearly unlawful.
As I recall, the ballot explanation said it was likely unconstitutional. The SD tax payers have to foot the bill because the tax payers passed the law. Reap what you sow
You mean the ballot explanation that Marty wrote– how is that not an unethical conflict of interest??
Nope. In fact, he warned us. But, just over 50% didn’t do their job as responsible citizens and explore the issue
The voters/taxpayers did pay attention to the ballot issue. The state screwed up again at the expense of the taxpayer.
How did state screw up?
They lost.
Mr. Schoenbeck is correct. The quote from the decision is:
“Plaintiffs SD Voice and Heidelberger contend that IM 24 violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding some people and groups from participating in the ballot initiative process and by creating rules restricting participation in the political process that apply only to ballot question committees. There is no need to reach these issues because I have previously found that plaintiffs have established the likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment and Commerce Clause claims.”
I would argue that other statements in the decision indicate that a finding on violation of the would Equal Protection clause likely be made because the judge makes several references to disparate treatment of different classes of people engaged in the same activity. However, I’m not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar so I’m open to other interpretations, of course.
Uninformed voters have a tendency to make mistakes.
First, I find it interesting that Cory was in bed with the Koch Brothers in order to destroy democracy in South Dakota. I wonder if his fellow Marxists are concerned with his hypocritical behavior.
Second, the judge used the Democrats much hated Citizen United ruling. I would have liked to see the look on Cory’s face when that happened.
Steve
there is an entertaining humor is the invocation of Citizen’s United well played 🙂
Democracy was not destroyed by the ruling because the government of South Dakota is a republic. Read the State Constitution. The natural, Constitutional, and republican right of free speech needed protection from IM 24 and the knee-jerk and emotional reactions that precipitated it.
Okay, so we just need to make sure that voters are aware if some socialist idiocy is out there and who is trying to sway our elections. I, for one, don’t want socialists from the East coast or Californicators deciding the laws in my state, so we need to be vigilant about who is trying to push what. As a conservative you can almost always look to who is pushing something to decide if it is good or bad.
“As a conservative you can almost always look to who is pushing something to decide if it is good or bad.”
As a conservative you can look at “what” is being pushed to decide if it is good or bad. Nobody is right 100% of the time, and no one is wrong 100% of the time. Sadly we are so distracted by the who that we don’t see far enough into the what.
I don’t often agree with you, but this: “Sadly we are so distracted by the who that we don’t see far enough into the what.” was well put.
People are only afraid of outsiders because they’re gullible. No other state’s Republicans have tried to hide from other groups ideas.
Cory’s party is against what he posts on his blog.
The Democrat party is for Trump’s hard stance against China as well as most farmers and ranchers.
The Democrat party wants to get rid of the Citizens United ruling.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47073/democrats-renew-push-overturn-major-first-josh-hammer
This ruling basically says the First Amendment can cross State lines.
That means that the Second can also right?
Is there a case out there saying it cant’?