This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Jeremiah M. Murphy of Protect Private Property sends out a press release announcing his group has collected 19,000 signatures to refer South Dakota Senate Bill 174 to a public vote this November. The press release says the PPP folks submitted their petitions to Secretary of State Chris Nelson today, June 16. State law gives citizens 90 days after the end of the Legislative session to file their petitions. The Legislature adjourned on March 17. Day 90 fell on Sunday, so the PPP folks evidently got until the next business day, today, to file.
SB 174, as you may recall, is a special treat for the DM&E and other railroads who don't want to go through the same due process as other entities trying to take your land for their profit. Assuming at least 16,776 of the petition signatures pass muster with Secretary Nelson, the referral of SB 174 will join four constitutional amendments and three initiated measures on our action-packed November ballot:
- Constitutional Amendment G - Repeal certain reimbursement restrictions for travel by legislators to and from a legislative session. View full text of HJR1003.
- Constitutional Amendment H - Repeal certain provisions of the State Constitution relating to corporations. View full text of HJR1001.
- Constitutional Amendment I - Provide for a maximum of forty legislative days each year. View full text of HJR1004.
- Constitutional Amendment J - Eliminate term limits for legislators. View full text of SJR1.
- Initiated Measure 9 - South Dakota Small Investors Protection Act. View full text of petition.
- Initiated Measure 10 - South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act. View full text of petition.
- Initiated Measure 11 - Regulate the performance of certain abortions, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being and to prescribe a penalty therefore. View full text of petition.
Add all the state legislative races in which the Dems are ready to wage war to retake the Senate and maybe even the House (we're all thinking 2010 and redistricting), and you have the makings of another really exciting election season. Start reading up now, folks! We've got a lot to decide!
Look race by race. Dems do not have a serious chance at retaking the Senate - most of the vulnerable seats are Democratic now. And they have no chance at the House.
ReplyDeleteIs it me? or does it look like the open and clean government act expressly prohibits publically financed elections? It says that candidates can't get any funding from the state/federal government? I sure hope we don't have anyone running for president from SD anytime soon if this passes.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right, Matt. Patrick Weber tells me Initiated Measure 10 is a train wreck. By Patrick's reading, it bans any form of political speech on the campus of any public school. Yikes!
ReplyDeleteIt is all-around nastiness. Section 1 is the one that gives me the most guff. Because it includes public resources, that throws just about everything in the basket.
ReplyDeleteNo public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity.
It's trouble!
It's definitely trouble. For instance, it will prevent the state from paying dues of organizations to which state employees belong (which might be considered lobbying organizations) that involve networking with other state's similar organizations. This networking is how SD employees talk with other state's employees about issues that benefit SD. Vote NO on this!!
ReplyDeleteInitiative #9 is another bad idea. It involves a complicated issue of short selling that most people don't understand nad have never heard of. The issue it tries to address is already addressed by present law.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it has a nice sounding title, this initiative could have many unintended consequences and should be voted NO on.
Just a friendly reminder: the "this" Anon and the rest of us have mentioned is the "Clean and Open" government bill, Initiated Measure 10. The eminent domain measure is a different issue (one I'm inclined to support at this point!).
ReplyDelete