I was interviewed on a radio station this morning with regards to Amendment T, as they were looking for the reasons why people should vote no on it. I got through maybe a third of my talk, so I thought posting some of the specific points against it for readers might be a good place for those seeking good information on why you should reject Amendment T, which stands for Terrible.
Unaccountable.
Amendment T, the redistricting measure seeks to establish an unelected & unaccountable board to redraw the legislative district lines and take this power away from our elected Legislature. In fact, if you think about it, instead of having Legislators, who are directly elected by the people, it would replace them by an unelected board, appointed by another unelected board.
Amendment T is the bureaucratization of democracy. and provides bureaucrats power over voters against which the voters have no recourse.
It’s a solution looking for a problem.
In 2011, with the input of Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leadership, and others, legislators redrew the lines and received Obama Justice Administration approval, despite previous lawsuits and redrawn lines after previous redistricting.
Now FIVE YEARS later the South Dakota Farmer’s Union has spent over $150,000.00 to establish this board which would redraw the lines in 2017 and again in 2021, thereby providing extra cost and confusion to voters. The proponents of this Amendment are seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist, by gerrymandering our legislature.
The Redistricting commission in 2011 improved the District maps by reducing the number of split counties and adhering to the principles of respecting county lines and urban integrity. This approach benefitted rural areas, towns, and urban centers.
Outside of partisans who have noted their unhappiness over the lines not being drawn in a way that specifically benefitted them, there has literally been no public derision of the way the latest legislative lines were drawn.
If they passed the muster of the Justice department for most liberal federal administration in my lifetime, the Obama Administration, I’m not sure why South Dakota Democrats have such a beef with it.
It takes an open process and closes it as it limits public input
Amendment T mandates 30 days public input for the redistricting committee…. the legislature’s redistricting committee in 2011 had SIX MONTHS of public input. Voters would have LESS say in redistricting under Amendment T.
Portions of Amendment T are clearly Unconstitutional.
Amendment T expressly notes that it does not allow ANY elected party or state officeholder to serve for 3 years prior to and 3 years after serving on the board. This renders it unconstitutional before the first letter is typed into law.
Remember South Dakota term limits? They don’t apply to federally elected candidates, because it’s unconstitutional. Amendment T has the same problem with its language when it bars anyone from running for office for three years after serving on the board.
In 2000 – The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a California residency rule for congressional candidates, deciding that a state cannot add requirements for federal office to those already set down in the U.S. Constitution. That portion of Amendment T would most certainly be struck down upon challenge, and other portions could potentially be challenged in other “right to run” lawsuits. (States and local districts may set their own qualifications, but unless these are closely aligned with those in the Constitution governing candidacies for high national office, such laws would be ripe for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge.)
Proponents aren’t exactly being forthright.
The proponents make misleading statements that 3 of the last 4 redistricting committees have been sued; the one in 2011 was NOT sued and so there has not been a lawsuit since 2001. And just because someone sues does not mean they are right.
..
I haven’t really said much about this measure to this point, because ultimately, redistricting isn’t a big deal, and the calls of gerrymandering are literally, a load of horse manure. Why do I have that opinion? Because of our large geographic area and sparse populations, you really can’t draw these lines other ways, and ultimately, it’s not going to change elections in South Dakota.
That being said, it’s offensive to have an unelected board appoint another unelected board to draw the lines of elections in the state – it borders on parody. And it shows how poorly drafted this measure is. What’s to stop the legislature from completely rewriting the election board makeup in the first place?
I could go on, but you get the point.
Amendment T is a solution looking for a problem. One that does not exist in South Dakota.
$14K in advertising is pretty normal. But $3,047 in credit card fees? How does a political candidate rack up $3000 in credit card fees? Is that even possible? Then, $2,031 on travel around Sioux Falls? And here’s the kicker – $22,537 spent on consulting for a South Dakota State Legislative race?