LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HIGHLIGHT MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS TO REPLACE INITIATED MEASURE 22

Pat Powers

LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HIGHLIGHT MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS TO REPLACE INITIATED MEASURE 22

Pierre, SD – January 26, 2017 – Today, South Dakota Legislative Leaders confirmed their commitment to replacing Initiated Measure 22 with real, substantive solutions. A South Dakota Judge has ruled that IM 22 is entirely unenforceable by entering a preliminary injunction. In announcing his ruling, the Judge said IM22 is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Earlier this morning, Legislative Leaders in both houses discussed at least four bills that are currently introduced to address voter concerns in South Dakota. 

“The first step is to repeal the measure, because the bill was so poorly drafted by people outside of our state, there’s really no other choice,” said House Majority Leader Lee Qualm. “Having said that, we take the will of the voters very seriously and we are all committed to real solutions that can address concerns, but not violate our state’s constitution,” added Leader Qualm. 

At the close of the third legislative week in Pierre, lawmakers cited at least four bills that have been introduced to replace Initiated Measure 22. House Bills 1076 and 1073, along with Senate Bills 53 and 54 addresses lobbyist gifting, campaign finance, and legislative accountability, which were all major themes of IM22. 

“We’re going to leave session having honored the voters’ intent when they passed IM22 without all of the unintended consequences,” said Senate Majority Leader Curd. “I introduced a bill this morning dealing with lobbyist reform and I think you’ll see more proposals in the weeks to come,” added Leader Curd. 

House Bill 1069, repealing Initiated Measure 22, was introduced and passed in the House earlier this week. The Senate will take action next week and then work to replace the major themes represented in IM22.

9 thoughts on “LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HIGHLIGHT MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS TO REPLACE INITIATED MEASURE 22”

  1. “the Judge said IM22 is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt”- In what context was that claimed statement? Official or to somebody in the hallway?– If it was an official finding — show it. Post a link to the transcript or the official finding that explains which parts and why they are unConstitutional– Where is it?

    1. 53 and 54 seem to be the most thought out.

      Soli’s bill is the most extensive but no way leadership passes it.

  3. Ms. Dee should listen to those extremely funny blue links where they just ripped on The IM #22 and all the libbies, every one of them, admitted it was a giant mess. I laughed and laughed and laughed.

  4. Are the proposed replacements Ricky Weiland approved? We want to be sure that the socialists get their say in this. I’m sure Ricky wants to waste taxpayer dollars on political campaigns, so any replacement must (mis)use taxpayer funds like the piece of garbage Ricky and his out-of-state friends foisted on us.

  5. Lederman is making the SD GOP come to life. I had not seen a press release or anything from the GOP for a long time.

    They sent a couple out against Amendment V at the end of the election. But nothing really defending candidates or races.

    Bravo Lederman. You have lit a fire in the world of the state party.

  6. “the Judge said IM22 is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt”- In what context was that claimed statement? Official or to somebody in the hallway?– If it was an official finding — show it. Post a link to the transcript or the official finding that explains which parts and why they are unConstitutional– Where is it?

  7. Legislative Majority if full CYA-mode. Are they actually scared that the public will vote them out? Probably not a likelihood this upcoming cycle — maybe a few years if given enough rope.

Comments are closed.