It's a good thing when study commissions keep in mind what the voters want.

The Rapid City Journal is reporting tonight that the Constitutional Revision Commission is smartly saying NO to putting forth a proposal to monkey around with the number of signatures required to place a measure on the ballot.
A proposal that would have required sponsors of proposed state laws to get more signatures in order to put their measures on the ballot was rejected Thursday by a special commission. The proposal, which could have increased by about 50 percent the number of signatures needed to put an initiated measure on the ballot, was defeated on a 5-7 vote by the Constitutional Revision Commission, which is studying legal provisions that deal with the legislative process.

Commission member Bob Roe of Brookings, a former state lawmaker, said voters would never accept any proposal that boosted the number of signatures needed to put something on the ballot for a statewide public vote. South Dakotans are determined to protect their right to place measures on the ballot, and they would block any move to make that more difficult, he said.
Read it all here. (and good job guys)

Comments

Anonymous said…
The only reason Olinger has a problem with the initiative process is that this year there is a tobacco tax initiative. He and the other tobacco lobbyists can't control the electorate as easily as they control the legislature.
Todd Epp said…
PP:

Thanks for adding Jack Billion's photo to your moving photo marquee. However, I would have preferred you put him between my congresswoman Stephanie Herseth and my state representative Shantel Krebs. (grin)

Todd Epp
Anonymous said…
For example, the sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment that would set up a system allowing people to sue judges were advised that their proposal would conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The LRC also told them the lengthy measure would more properly be a proposed law, not a proposed change to the South Dakota Constitution.

The sponsors ignored that advice, collected signatures and placed the measure on the November ballot.


The JAIL4Judges people will not take no for an answer.

After it is defeated at the ballot this November, it probably will be back in 2008.
Anonymous said…
Hey, back off on Olinger. Before he entered private practice he was the director of the first constituion revision committee in the early 70's. There are very few people in this state with the depth of knowledge of the constitution and state government that he posesses. I have worked with him and against him for 30 years and have found him to be honest and honorable. When he serves on a public committe he parks his client's interests at the door and does what he thinks is right for the people of the state.If you disagree with him say so, don't try to sully his excellent reputation by such scurilous comments. Ya, I'm proud to number him amoung my friends. Harry W Christianson
Anonymous said…
I disagree with your position that the commission did the right thing. Although I often disagree with the legislature's actions, I trust our legislators to study an issue before taking action. The initiative process is too often abused and voters can and have been duped by sound bites rather than carefully considering the impact of the initiative they propose.

I also find your position ironic because you have rightfully taken a very strong position against J.A.I.L. We will continue to see these fringe groups propose bad amendments and laws as long as the initiative process remains as it now exists. We are going to have a number of items on the upcoming ballot, including the NORML initiative. I am very concerned that a well heeled person or organization will be able to put together a bad proposal that will pass just as our State adopted the unconstitutional corporate farming ban and repeal of the inheritance tax (cost the state over $20 mil./year - 55% of which was paid by out of staters) just a few years ago.

Between JAIL, NORML and Napoli's property tax/anti economic development/anti-new homeowner initiative (1st major step towards an income tax), South Dakotans will eventually vote themselves into the stone age.

The initiative/referendum process should be available for the citizens to invoke in extraordinary cases, not on the whim of somebody who has a bone to pick and a catchy sound bite like, "Do you think Judges should be above the law?"
Anonymous said…
Really, the initiative and referendum process has to be in place in South Dakota. The voters won't elect anyone but Republicans, and the citizenry often has to correct their absurd behavior.

Also, the Republicans in the legislature also like to refer things relating to a new tax. They are pussies. They don't like leading, they like finding a postion where people are, and getting there first.

Republicans are pussies.
Anonymous said…
Anon 1:10 a.m., your comment doesn't warrant a written response, but I don't know who you are, so I can't find you and slap you.

The voters are the citizenry. You apparently suggest that the voters elect Republicans, but err in doing so; therefore, it's a good thing the citizenry can swing into action and undo what the voters have done by electing the people they elect.

It's OK. I understand. Nobody ever accused a liberal of sound reasoning.

The voters ARE the citizenry, for those of you in Rio Linda.
mike said…
Yeah, let's do away with initiative and referendum all together.

That's what Big government, high tax (except for themselves), Blotted beauracracy, pork barrel(South Dakota is #1) swilling, self interest bozo's like anon. 11:55 would like.

He suggests your too stupid to have that much power. You're "dupes and fools" and can't make your own decisions. Rely on him and the cronies he got into the legislature. They will take care of your needs. He "trusts them."
Anonymous said…
One lobbyist defending another. These folks have made exceptional wages off of the backs of the rest of south dakota's minimum wage earners for way too long. The lobbyists and boys in Pierre just don't get it. We understand who's back is being scratched and who's bed is getting feathered. The framers of our constitution were the first to allow for the iniative and referendum for a reason--keep the likes of Olinger and Christianson (Janklow crony) from completely taking advantage of the little guy.

Good luck in trying to take away the people's rights, boys. We all know what a bunch of sheep the GOP legislature is. There has to be some way to correct some of the bumbling that goes on in Pierre. Exhibit A--the inheritance tax.

PP, you are right on the money!

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.