Per KELO, Video Lottery and Phone tax ARE on the bllot
The State Supreme Court announced today that vodeo lottery and the cell phone tax are on the ballot. Per KELO, it's game on:
South Dakotans will be allowed to vote on a repeal of video lottery and a cell phone tax.Read it all here.
The state supreme court has ruled 5-0 in favor of the campaigns to put the tax on the ballot.
Attorney General Larry Long had instructed Secretary of State Chris Nelson not to put the measures on the ballot, saying a prior court decision didn't allow for a public vote on initiated measures, especially those that would take away state revenue sources.
But the supreme court has overridden that decision.
Comments
From Kelo:
"08/09/2006
Billion’s Brother On Abortion
South Dakota's abortion debate took a twist today when the younger brother of gubernatorial candidate Jack Billion showed up at a news conference to oppose his sibling's position.
Democrat Jack Billion called the stunt an example of how divisive the issue is and how some people have little tolerance for other views.
....AND
Younger brother Stephen Billion, an internal medicine doctor, said he supports the ban because it "recognizes the scientific and moral truth about human life in the womb."
Jack Billion, a retired Sioux Falls physician, calls the ban a "rigid and unforgiving law" that leaves women and families no option."
Is Jack Billion a hypocrite? In one breath, he calls the issue "divisive" and says some people have "little tolerance" and in the next he expresses his intolerance for the bill and the opinion of nearly seventy percent of the elected officials who are elected to make educated decisions.
He can be on the other side of them, but he has to realize that honest people can disagree. Not everybody who believes in the sanctity of life is divisive, intolerant, ridid, and unforgiving. Quite the opposite in most cases. I know a lot of pro-lifers who are wonderfully caring, compassionate, loving, and warm-hearted people.
http://www.sdjudicial.com/opinions/downloads/y2006/24139.pdf
From AP:
HARTFORD, Conn. - Top Democrats on Capitol Hill abandoned Sen. Joe Lieberman one by one Wednesday and threw their support to Ned Lamont, the anti-war challenger who defeated him in the primary. But Lieberman said his conscience demands that he run as an independent in November. "I think it would be irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles if I were to just walk off the field," Lieberman said in an interview with The Associated Press a day after his loss to the political newcomer in a race that was considered an early referendum on the Iraq war.
If you said Senator Adelstein, you would be correct. I can't believe the ego of these guys. But good to see it's not just one party.
When Larry advised Chris, he did it using state law as previously interpreted by the Supreme Court. It wasn't something he made up.
duh.
AS PP said you are flat wrong in your statements about Chris Nelson and Larry Long. On page 11 of the opinion, the Court clearly says they did nothing wrong. Further, the Court says "As constitutional officers they (Nelson/Long) were bound to follow Christensen. . ." Anon 11:02 you are the one with egg on your face.
If they could come up with other revenue sources along with the initiatives, that would help.
That is BS for two reasons. The original opinion they both relied on clearly said you cannot repeal OR amend with an initiative. Nonetheless, after booting cell phones and video lottery, Nelson put several items on the ballot in 2006 that would amend. Example number one of picking and choosing, and suggesting improper motive.
Next, Chris Nelson has said all along that he was not a fan of the Christensen decision when it first came out, and it contains strong language, but it's the law of the land. Then, Mr. Nelson, if you KNEW about this court case all along, and knew you were a constitutional officer, why would you completely ignore its language and post explanations on your website in contradiction of the court's decision, saying that an initiative can repeal AND amend, and why would you ignore the opinion and certify the food tax repeal in 2004, and various other initiatives that amended. Example number two of picking and choosing suggesting improper motive.
I can see that Nelson did the right thing if he was operating in a vacuum and this was the first election cycle after the 1995 opinion. But to admit knowledge of that opinion for 11 years and to have clearly ignored it, only to suddenly find Jesus with it in 2006, and then only to find Jesus with it in a selective manner????
Come on, Justice Gilbertson, who are we kidding here? We don't know if there was improper motive or not, but the evidence certainly doesn't vindicate Nelson. He suddenly and subjectively applied this old case, and NOT even on his own initiative, but at the behest of others.