Given the other comments from my colleagues, I figured I should weigh in as well on our lengthy ballot. Again, be sure to read through the South Dakota Ballot Voter Guide (pdf alert) put out by the state. Comments and counterarguments are certainly welcome. If you disagree, send us an email explaining why and see if you can convince me otherwise. If you think I'm wrong, either by getting facts wrong or just think my conclusions are wrong, please email us. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. It will help me as an educated voter if I'm corrected sooner rather than later. If I have the time I'll respond to reader emails on this blog. I've tried to keep these concise. And be sure to continue reading about the issues and do your part as an informed voter. So, here we go:
Amendment C
Allows further restrictions
on gay marriage, civil unions, etc. and defines marriage between a man and a woman
I agree with defining marriage to be between a man and a women, but I disagree with complete intolerance towards homosexuals--I have no problem with them being in unions and being together. Unfortunately this position brings up a number of other arguments about child adoption, polygamy, etc., but those are topics for a later post (in short, I think children are better off under a traditional family structure). South Dakota statute already defines marriage between a man and a woman. As I understand it, this amendment would put the statute into the state Constitution. That said, I'm voting no on this because the state has already defined marriage. There's no need to clutter our Constitution with this.
Amendment D
Property tax reform--assessment of land is based on acquisition value, increases the cap to 3% except in cases of reclassification, sale, addition, improvement, or destruction.
I'm leaning yes on this one. If I understand the current law, property taxes depend on the value of the land around you. If you buy a piece of land at a cheap price, your tax on that land will be cheap. But if a neighbor moves in and builds a $1 million house next to you, thus increasing the value of the land, then your taxes will increase even if you've done nothing to improve your own property. This tends to put financial pressure on retirees, farmers, and low- and middle-income workers. They shouldn't be priced out of their property by their wealthier neighbors.
Amendment E
“JAIL”
Amendment, which will create a special grand jury to hear appeals and punish judges, elected officials, and jurors for malfeasance
No. Every public official and citizen on juries would be eligible to lawsuits by anyone dissatisfied by a verdict. This has the potential to stagnate the courts either by litigation or the fear of litigation. This measure would give too much power to the special grand jury that has no check on its power by any branch of our state government.
Amendment F
Constitutional
revisions
I agree with my colleague on this one, I'll be voting yes. There are a host of changes to Article III of the state Constitution under this amendment, mostly meant to clarify. The removal of Congressional term limits will square our Constitution with federal court rulings. One concern for me was the increase in the legislature's authority to set its own rates for expense reimbursements, which could mean digging deeper into public funds, but considering our legislators only meet for two months out of the year I think we can watch them and check any greedy legislators. The legislator also will wield more power to act in emergencies, which is fine with me. Remember Katrina and the bureaucratic mess that was? If there's an emergency, I'd prefer they have the authority to act rather than fumble around a legal technicality.
Initiated Measure 2
Increase the
tobacco tax
No. Why? Read below. Plus I worry about a tall tax. I mean, if someone is willing to propose an anti-Communist law, then just maybe . . .
Initiated Measure 3
Mandate no
school before August 31
No. This is a local control issue, not something the state needs to mess with. Each community sets the start date for the school year and it should remain that way. They go through the school board and if they don't agree with them, they can refer it to a vote. There's no reason for a statewide law.
Initiated Measure 4
Legalize medical marijuana
I don't feel strongly one way or the other with this one, but I'm leaning toward yes unless someone convinces me otherwise. I'd prefer that medical professionals determine what is good for their patients, not the government. However, passing this law entails a cautionary note: I do not want this to lend itself to total legislation, as Prof. Schaff wrote below. Although it might be preferable to include some tight restrictions on this measure (ie, ensure that marijuana in general does not become legal), I still think it's all right to pass it for medical purposes.
Initiated Measure 5
Restrict the use
of the state plane to state business without exceptions for the governor or state law enforcement officials
This is a pointless measure based on an Argus Leader campaign to discredit the governor. I'm voting against it. If Gov. Rounds goes joyriding in the state plane, it won't be kept a secret in this state.
Initiated Measure 7
Repeal video lottery
No. We have voted on this three times already and it's been rejected every time. It may be bad to fund government through video lottery, but to just outright eliminate it is a bad idea. The state receives huge amounts of money from gambling. I think what's needed for this to work is a complete tax system overhaul. Plus, gamblers have a right to make their own decision on what to do with their money. Be sure to read Prof. Schaff's thoughts below.
Initiated Measure 8
Repeal wireless telecommunications tax
No. This is nothing more than a measure pushed by out-of-state interests, in this case Verizon Wireless, who paid $115,000 to round up signatures for the petition to get this on the ballot.
Referred Law 6
Complete ban on abortions
I'm voting no, as I've explained before, because this is bad public policy (not because I support abortions). I don't understand how this law is going to fix the problem. What's at stake here is to reduce abortions, right? Wrong. Banning them won't fix it, it only pushes the problem out of South Dakota. The number of abortions is not the problem; the reason for the abortions is. Individuals fail to take personal responsibility regarding this issue. Our society today tells you that you can do anything, get away with anything, and be guilt-free. The problem isn't the number, but rather the idea.
To clarify my position, I believe that life begins within minutes of conception, a belief that's based on science, not faith (although they can often intersect). The egg and sperm carry twenty-three chromosomes, the DNA that encodes a unique human. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the separate DNA strands combine into twenty-three pairs and a unique blueprint for a unique human being is created. When the cell divides on its own, usually within a half hour, that being is alive, unique, and separate from its mother. Thus, our DNA and genetic composition is a fact. Cell division demonstrates life, as any biologist will tell you. For me, what to do with that life is a matter of values rather than faith. The question we face is whether to sacrifice that life as a matter of convenience. Yet throughout the history of Western civilization we have enacted laws, constructed families, and developed moral and social structures to protect young lives. The devaluation of innocent life is a dangerous precedent.
Those who support abortion either defy science and fail to recognize life at this stage, or simply ignore the question in order to focus on the "right to choose." Yet by logic this argument supports a freedom from personal responsibility that I mentioned above. The choice was already made because of a failure to use contraceptives or avoid the action altogether; a pregnancy is a result of poor choices. Apparently some segments of our society wish to act as children and take no responsibility for their decisions.
Recent Comments