As State Legislators continue their work to rectify the complete mess foisted upon South Dakota by falsehoods prosecuted by the out-of-state hucksters who funded Initiated Measure 22, I’d point out this morning that more measures have been filed which respond to what voters thought they were really going to get, as well as to prevent future messes:
Senate Bill 59 has been making it’s way through the process already, and actually sets an effective date for measures to take effect, allowing legislators and state government the opportunity to prepare for passage, with an opportunity to put rules and regulations into place:
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS ENGROSSED NO. SB 59 – 1/20/2017
Introduced by: Senators White, Bolin, Cronin, Curd, Haverly, Jensen (Phil), Langer, Netherton, Partridge, Peters, Rusch, Soholt, Solano, Tidemann, and Wiik and Representatives Stevens, Chase, Glanzer, Johns, Kettwig, Lake, Mickelson, Peterson (Kent), Reed, and Steinhauer
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to delay the effective date for initiated measures and referred laws.
Senate Bill 77 has been filed to make sure that any measure filed which has a fiscal impact has circulators actually TELL people that it does:
SENATE BILL NO. 77 Introduced by: Senators Otten (Ernie), Nelson, Rusch, Russell, and Stalzer and Representatives Haggar, Haugaard, Otten (Herman), and Tieszen
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for a fiscal note for any initiated measure or initiated amendment to the Constitution that would have a fiscal impact on the state.
House Bill 1073 addresses the concerns about lobbyist “gifts” to legislators:
HOUSE BILL NO. 1073 Introduced by: Representatives Mickelson, Bartels, Bartling, Beal, Chase, Clark, Dennert, Haggar, Hawley, Heinemann, Howard, Jensen (Kevin), Johns, Kettwig, Latterell, Lust, McPherson, Otten (Herman), Peterson (Kent), Peterson (Sue), Qualm, Reed, Rhoden, Steinhauer, Stevens, Tieszen, Tulson, and Willadsen and Senators Otten (Ernie), Curd, Ewing, Greenfield (Brock), Heinert, Langer, Maher, Nelson, Netherton, Novstrup, Soholt, and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise and repeal certain provisions regarding gifts from registered lobbyists to public officials.
House Bill 1074 addresses funding coming from out of state, although, while I don’t disagree with it, I question the constitutionality of the measure if challenged:
HOUSE BILL NO. 1074 Introduced by: Representatives Gosch, Brunner, Clark, Dennert, Greenfield (Lana), Howard, Jensen (Kevin), Kettwig, Lake, Latterell, Marty, Mickelson, Otten (Herman), Pischke, Qualm, and Rasmussen and Senators Youngberg, Cronin, and Jensen (Phil)
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for limits on certain out-of-state contributions to ballot question committees.
And House Bill 1076 addresses the need for a stronger review system if inconsistencies are determined, such as with the Gear-Up or EB5 contracts – which is what people THOUGHT they were getting with IM22, but as we know, that measure didn’t address them at all:
HOUSE BILL NO. 1076 Introduced by: Representatives Soli, Bartling, Hawley, Mickelson, Peterson (Kent), Qualm, and Wismer and Senators Greenfield (Brock), Frerichs, Heinert, and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to create a State Government Accountability Board.
Thoughts?
1073 is what the people thought IM 22 did and in all honesty will still allow a dinner to be covered which is a nice way to talk over legislative matters in a semi-private setting.
HB 1074 is a trainwreck. Terrible language and how in the heck does someone track that? This is an absolute nightmare of a bill if you ask me.
Soli’s bill is excellent. I can’t believe it took a Democrat to come up with the solution. Republican legislators need to get it together.
White’s bill is also excellent.