I had forgotten about the LRC review, but in a story at the Argus this evening by Johnathan Ellis, apparently the out-of-state authors of IM22 ignored multiple warnings of problems with their measure by the LRC and Attorney General. Problems that even the people who campaigned for it are left shrugging their shoulders with weak excuses and egg on their faces:

Jason Hancock, the director of the Legislative Research Council, wrote a letter to the proponents on July 29, 2015 outlining a number of concerns about what was then just a proposed ballot measure. Included in Hancock’s letter was a concern that the language appropriating money for the Democracy Credit program violated the state constitution.

and..

Despite the warning, the language was not changed. The measure got enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and narrowly passed last week, surprising proponents and opponents alike, despite a warning from Attorney General Marty Jackley on his explanation that, “If approved, the measure may be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.”

and…

Don Frankenfeld, a former lawmaker who was one of the sponsors, said he anticipated a court challenge regarding IM 22 and its interaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allowed businesses to spend money in political campaigns. But the constitutionality of appropriating money for the Democracy Credit program was a different issue, and Frankenfeld said he needed to confer with legal experts who drafted the bill about why they thought it passed constitutional muster.

Regardless, Frankenfeld thought the sponsors heeded the Legislative Research Council’s concerns.

“It’s obviously an opinion that would have been taken seriously by us,” he said.

and..

“I would have thought that, having been warned by the non-partisan Legislative Research Council, that IM 22 was unconstitutional, its proponents would have corrected those problems before putting it on the ballot,” Venhuizen said.

This story is important – Go read the entire story here.

In fact, let me diagram how IM22’s backers intentionally deceived voters, by knowingly including language they had been warned was unconstitutional before they collected a single signature:

Despite the constitutional defects, the drafters chose to include the unconstitutional provision in the final version of IM22 that was filed with the Secretary of State.

A little deception, a million dollars of advertising. That’s apparently what it takes to pass a measure on the ballot according to Rick Weiland and his cohorts.

I’m hearing the lawsuits are going to come quick on this. And with good reason.

Here’s a couple of stories that are coming in from legislators departing the process, and those who are newly elected.

Here’s the story from a legislator who decided not to run for re-election:

The current 105 legislators are in violation and the ones getting sworn in when session starts will obviously be too. Of course there is a lot of overlap. For me personally, my wife works for the local hospital so when she gets her paycheck next week I would be in violation of the new law. Am I suppose resign even though I most likely won’t vote on anything? This is crazy!

A legislator who didn’t even run in 2016 – and he’s going to be in violation of IM22 because his wife works?

My newly elected State Representative Tim Reed, who is also outgoing as the local mayor. He’s also affected – but in a different way:

So here is another one for IM22. I’m a board member and newly elected representative. My last SDML board meeting is early December. The League normally has a dinner and pays for travel expenses.

To be safe I’ll have to pay for the meal and travel expenses.

So, the Mayor – who is taking part in a function related to his job as mayor – is going to have to foot the bill for expenses that any one else would cover in the normal course of business. Except for IM22. If he lets them pay them, he’s guilty of a criminal act.

This act passed upon us by out of state nitwits, with the cooperation of Slick Rick Weiland, needs to go. Whether it’s at a special session, or at a regular session, it’s a serious mess.

A reader tells me that they’re hearing that the student pharmacists who travel to Pierre every year are wondering how to quantify the gift from their health screening. And unfortunately, it’s easier to cancel than do that.

Initiated Measure 22’s damage continues to roll on.

From the Aberdeen American News comes an editorial which tells us what we already know. That Democrats aren’t returning to the Governor’s office anytime soon: 

Now, it seems Republicans likely know their choices — either Noem or state Attorney General Marty Jackley, who said Tuesday he is creating a political action committee and funding it with $700,000 for his bid for governor.

Incumbent governor Dennis Daugaard cannot seek re-election because of term limits.

Who the Democrats will run for governor is unknown. And, in truth, it might not matter. The last time a Democrat served as governor was in 1979, and there’s no reason to believe the political winds will shift enough to give the hobbled party a realistic chance at residing in the governor’s mansion anytime soon.

Read it here.

And Initiated Measure 22’s effects continue to spiral out of control. The latest victim? The Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce is canceling the legislative welcome they host every year for the legislators who are coming to town:

Hi Pat,

The Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce is regretfully canceling the Legislative Welcome, which is traditionally the first “official” event of the legislative session pending a final decision at our board meeting today.

Our event involves local businesses and organizations sponsoring one or more legislator with the intent of welcoming them to the Capitol City for the next two months. We probably would be OK moving ahead with our event because the ticket price is much less than $100. But because several of our sponsors are involved in different organizations, we are not sure how they would be affected. At the same time we are hearing that legislators are considering not attending any events just to be safe.

In addition, we are looking ahead to the rest of the session trying to figure out how it will affect us. We buy a table at the tourism banquet and traditionally invite our legislators to sit with us. We also sponsor our legislators at the SD Chamber Business Day at the Legislature. Between those two events we will have be just a few dollars under our $100 limit (assuming each attends both events).  If we went ahead with our Legislative Welcome, we would likely need to drop one or both of these other sponsorships. For the next 11 months I guess we’ll let them take us out to lunch if we need to talk about an issue!

While this is disappointing to our office, it will be devastating to Pierre’s economy. The Ramkota, other restaurants and caterers have come to depend on the businesses generated during the Legislative Session. They are just now starting to understand the impact of IM22.

This was a terrible issue and will continue to be confusing for the foreseeable future.

Laura Schoen Carbonneau, IOM
CEO
Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce

This is still only the peak of the iceberg of effects that we’re going to see under Initiated Measure 22’s narrow passage at the ballot box last week.

This poorly worded measure is attempting to make criminals out of everyone, leaving no one left who can serve without a conflict.

From my mailbox:

From: siouxvalleyenergy.comDate: November 16, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM CST

Subject: Sioux Valley Energy and Southeastern Electric Legislative Forum CANCELLED

Dear Legislator:

Several legislators have expressed concerns regarding the upcoming Sioux Valley Energy and Southeastern Electric legislative forum which was to be held Monday, November 21 at Spezia in Sioux Falls. The concern centers around Initiated Measure 22 and the attendance of legislators at events such as the legislative forum we had planned which included a luncheon.

As a result of the concerns, we have decided to cancel the legislative forum for Monday. We hope in the future we will be able to host events such as this but until we have a better understanding of IM 22, we think it’s best to cancel this year.

We apologize if this causes any inconvenience and we look forward to seeing you in Pierre this year!

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

It would be helpful if you could reply and let us know you received this cancellation notice.

Thanks again,

Carrie Law

Sioux Falls legislators are telling me that this event has been canceled, as well as being given verbal notice that the annual legislative breakfast is also…. toast.

All due to a poorly written, measure from out of state written by Massachusetts residents.

Fixing this mess is probably going to take up the first week of the session.

These are starting to come fast and furious now…

I’ve heard that no fewer than 3 legislators now are questioning whether or not they will have to choose between their marriage an their legislative service because they are married to people who work for companies that have lobbyists or are otherwise compromised because of the confusion over Initiated measure 22.

I just got a note from a reader:

Chiropractors were set to hold a legislative event in Mitchell this week which has been canceled.  I had a note from a local chiropractor that the social was cancelled due fallout of IM 22.