Greetings from Pierre. As many predicted, IM-22 (the ethics reform measure) has dominated debate in the legislature. Three bills were introduced this week to change the initiated measure, referred law and amendment process as well as repeal IM-22.
SB 59 is a measure that would delay the effective date for initiated measures and referred laws. This bill is reasonable and worthy of consideration. This bill would change the effective date to July 1st of the following year. It is the same effective date for laws passed during legislative session without an emergency clause. This bill would allow time for the legislature to review a law that may need corrections or address sections that may have constitutional issues.
SB 67 is aimed at changing the number of signatures required for initiated measures. This bill will increase the number of signatures required to get a measure on the ballot. The proponents of this bill say it will make it more difficult for out-of-state interests to get initiated measures on the ballot. In reality, it will make it more difficult for South Dakotans to get measures on the ballot. Outside groups have the money and organization to meet the required number of signatures on a petition. Many of our ballot measures are introduced by local individuals and groups with limited resources. South Dakota was the first state to adopt the ballot initiative back in 1908. It is part our independent spirit and rich South Dakota history. To diminish our ability to exercise this right is a mistake.
Finally, HB 1069 has been introduced to repeal IM-22. Although this argument has broken down mainly along party lines, it is not a partisan issue. Most Republican and Democratic legislators recognize IM-22 has flaws. The distinction between parties comes with how these changes are addressed. Republicans are set on a full repeal without consideration of amending IM-22 to make it work or receiving input from the public. Leadership has tried to fast-track this bill through the process with changes in procedure. On Monday, it was announced on the House floor there would be a Joint State Affairs Committee to hear arguments on HB 1069. First, by rules, no such committee exists and would require a rules change to conduct business. When the committee chair was questioned on procedure, he cited other joint committees. All of these committees are defined in rules.
When the Senate State Affairs Chairman was asked how the Senate committee vote would proceed, he did not have an answer. As legislators, we have the ability to change rules and there is a process for that, but we cannot make it up as we go. The purpose of the joint hearing was to limit the amount of testimony for the opposition. The minimum amount of notification, 2 days, was given prior to the committee hearing. The limited number of days makes it difficult for the average citizen to take time from work to testify. Typically, legislation with this level of significance would receive more consideration for people wanting to testify, as well as the amount time given for committee hearings in both House and Senate. This bill also includes an emergency clause which does not allow the public to refer this bill to a vote.
Legislators should recognize that IM-22 is a reflection of how the voters feel about their government. The efforts of legislators to repeal IM-22 only perpetuates the distrust of government. The real issue in this debate is not about the ballot measure process or IM-22. The issue is whether the legislature respects the voters of South Dakota. SB 67 seeks to limit your voice and HB 1069 ignores it. The emergency clause attached to HB 1069 seeks to silence it.