IM24 – NO
This is a two-edged sword which cuts off both liberal and conservative advocacy. Such issue advocacy is protected under the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, and a court challenge is likely if it passes. IM24 is a misguided attempt to get the political experimentation out of our initiative and referendum process.
South Dakota has become something of a political petri dish – not so much because of the fact that we have a small population, that’s always been true; but rather because we decided some years ago that it’s OK to pay people to do the work of exercising our rights for us. The right of the people to petition their government is important, and compensating circulators to perform the duty of citizens cheapens and impedes that right. It is the duty of the citizens of South Dakota to petition their government when an issue arises. That task is difficult to do, but once the threshold is met, out-of-state money can be helpful in the public relations battle for both sides. Not all advocacy comes from the left side of the political spectrum.
IM25 – NO
No matter how you feel about smoking, this is a new tax on a legal product that will most affect those at the bottom of the income scale. That will result in less money in already poor households, and the new tax will create an incentive for black market cigarettes. Every year we spend millions of dollars on smoking cessation programs in the effort to decrease the use of cigarettes. Why tie something as essential as education money to source of diminishing returns? Technical schools are the last to benefit from this new tax, taking a back seat to the general fund and smoking cessation campaigns. Instead of looking for ways to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away, we should be asking why South Dakota Tech Schools are the third most expensive in the nation. This is a money management problem, not a money supply problem.
AMENDMENT X – YES
South Dakota is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. While it’s fine to decide statutory changes democratically (50%+1vote), changes to the Constitution should meet a higher, more representative threshold. A larger than 50% majority (2/3 vote) is required of the people’s representatives in the legislature in order for them to raise taxes. It’s a good idea to set a higher bar to protect important things – like our founding documents and the fruits of our labor.
AMENDMENT Z – YES
Article 3, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution states: “No law [brought before the Legislature] shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” That same requirement applied to statutes would be extended to changes to the Constitution with Amendment Z. This would make proposals to alter our Constitution more understandable and prevent radical omnibus constitutional amendments like Amendment W on this year’s ballot
Vote No On W
***Tonchi Weaver*** is a conservative activist and Life and Liberty News contributor
