I hadn't thought about that one - part II
In the previous post, I had opined that in the last decade, we haven't faced an issue where approval or disapproval of a statute had been directly referred to the people by a vote of the legislature. Hence, when the Governor says there may be a constitutional problem with doing so.... it's entirely possible.
As I got home tonight, I pulled up the constitutional section (under the legislative article, III, section 1):
The state constitution notes that "the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect."
So, I'm reading it so that through the initiative process, the people can propose directly to the people, and that they can refer laws. But it still leaves it up in the air whether or not that which it is silent on (the legislature referring measures to a vote of the electors) is allowable or not, since it's not prohibited.
KCCR News had this to add:
Any attorneys want to tackle that one? An abortion vote might depend on it.
As I got home tonight, I pulled up the constitutional section (under the legislative article, III, section 1):
Legislative power--Initiative and referendum. The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a Legislature which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions. Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.Read it for yourself here. And that makes it about as clear as mud.
This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure. The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the people. This section shall apply to municipalities. The enacting clause of all laws approved by vote of the electors of the state shall be: "Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota." The Legislature shall make suitable provisions for carrying into effect the provisions of this section.
The state constitution notes that "the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect."
So, I'm reading it so that through the initiative process, the people can propose directly to the people, and that they can refer laws. But it still leaves it up in the air whether or not that which it is silent on (the legislature referring measures to a vote of the electors) is allowable or not, since it's not prohibited.
KCCR News had this to add:
Rounds has not said if he would sign an abortion ban bill of any kind. He tells KCCR News that while he has not seen this bill, there might be a question of whether a bill could be passed and signed this way and then sent straight to the public. He says there may be a constitutional question about the bill. Rounds says the public has the right to refer any law that doesn’t have an emergency clause to a public vote. He says if "there is strong enough desire" people will go out and collect signatures to put the measure on the ballot.Read that all here.
Any attorneys want to tackle that one? An abortion vote might depend on it.
Comments
Oops... I did say that.
It saves the legislators from a public vote that the people can see how they voted and hold them to it.
oops... did i say that.
That is why he will often state a position on general ideas, such as creating a separate board for tech schools, but will not speak to particular bills. It really makes sense, and shows his understanding of and respect for the legislative process.
Governor's are elected to lead. This guy needs to know what is going on and way in in committee like he does for other issues he supports or opposes.
He simply doen't know what to do every time this abortion issue comes up because he is concerned about a primary opponent.
He's this way on lots of issues. Same song, different verse.
Most good Republicans want a leader not a follower!
Frankly his minimum wage and Kindergarden crap is just that--let the legislature bring the bills to him--not the other way around!
On the other hand, I was very disappointed in seeing the House committee wimp out and put in the clause in to send it directly to the people. Have a backbone and do YOUR job. That is why you got elected. I really think most people don't want to vote on it again.
The amendment they're talking about was the only thing I liked about this new ban. I thought, "Well, if they insist on going through this nonsense again, at least they were considerate enough to send it to the ballot." It seemed like a good idea for such a divisive issue. But it turns out that might not be constitutional.
Funny.
Of course, this demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding about how the Constitution works. The Constitution protects minority rights from being abridged by the majority. Currently, under Roe v. Wade, the Constitution protects the right to get an abortion. This right is protected even if 100% of South Dakotans voted to prohibit abortion. Just like the right to free speech would still be protected if 100% of South Dakotans voted to prohibit that.
Now, Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned anytime soon. But even if the Supreme Court were going to overrule Roe, it would do so because of they way in which it interprets the Constitution, not because of a vote. The results of elections have nothing to do with what the Constitution says, or how it's interpreted.
The Court does not look to opinion polls when they interpret the Constitution. It's simply astonishing that our Attorney General doesn't understand that, but I'm not at all surprised.