South Dakota Ballot

I think that the initiative and referendum process is a very bad idea. Like all the other states, South Dakota elects a governor and a state legislature. We expect them to do only three simple things:

1. provide generous services to the people of this state;
2. keep taxes very, very low; and
3. balance the state budget.

That looks a lot like my personal weight loss program: everything is on the table except dieting and exercise.

Giving the legislature an almost impossible task would make it too easy on them. So we also keep tying their hands by referendums and initiatives. There is one big problem and another bigger problem with this. The big problem is that we frequently use the state constitution to make policy. That is a little like trying to put the arrangement of furniture into a blueprint. A constitution should spell out the rules of governing; it should not be a means to fix legislative outcomes.

The bigger problem is that initiatives isolate a particular question from its effect on the rest of the laws and the budget. When the legislature decides to spend money on something, it has to face the fact that that money cannot be spent on something else. When the voters decide to spend money on a particular issue in an initiative, they are sheltered from that reality. This makes for irresponsible policy.

I find that these reflections make it a lot easier to decide how to vote on the various ballot issues. I apply them in the following analysis of this year's ballot.

Yes on Amendment M. The state constitution is not the place for restrictions on laws governing corporations. Since M removes such restrictions, yes is an easy call.

Yes on Amendment N. A five cents per mile constitutional restriction on travel reimbursement for legislatures (enacted in 1889!) is an absurdity. Again, this has no business being in the state constitution. We should remove the restriction.

Yes on Amendment O. I don't think that cement is as constitutional issue so I would rather see the business taken out of the state constitution. Amendment O replaces a dollar amount with a formula, which is at least a mild improvement.

No on Amendment P. A balanced budget is necessary for any government that cannot print money, and maybe for those that can. There is neither any need nor any use in stating the obvious in the state constitution.

So much for the alphabet issues. Now for the sexier, numerical referendums.

Yes on Referred Law 14. The governor and the legislature created a "Large Project Development Fund," which I suppose is intended to allow the Governor to encourage the development of large projects. I have no strong feelings about such a fund and neither do you. Or if you do, vote against the rascals who enacted it. Reversing the legislature's work shields them from your criticism and shields you from having to find out how your representative voted.

Referred Law 16. I am going to weasel out on this one. On the one hand, the legislative package that is referred to the voters here looks like a very big solution chasing a very small problem. On the other hand, anything that my South Dakota Magazine colleague Cory Heidelberger is so vehemently opposed to can't really be a bad idea. Much as I disapprove of the referendum process, it exists and I would vote against something I disliked as much as Cory dislikes this one. So I am taking the sub-courageous course of voting "present" on this one.

No on Initiated Measure 15. If you think that taxes should be raised and more money should be spent on education and Medicaid, I might agree with you. What both of us should do is talk to the people we send to Pierre and vote accordingly. Taxing and spending on such issues is something that should only be done with an eye to the state budget as a whole. That is what we pay our legislators to do. If we are going to bypass the legislature and create pools of money for specific purposes, why bother to fund a legislature at all?

We give our legislature an almost impossible task and yet they managed to accomplish it. South Dakota is a well-managed state, fiscally speaking. Let them do their job and then fire the rascals if you think they haven't done it well enough. Meanwhile, let's clean up the state constitution.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

What disasters have happened to South Dakota because they had the initiative and referendum process for 100 years? The elites, their lobbyists, and legislative leadership have never liked the fact that they can't control the I & R process as easily as they can the Legislature. That explains their efforts over the years to do away or severely restrict the I & R.

[Bill Fleming]

Comments like this one is how we know you ain't from around these parts KB. I&R began in SD. Get with the program. LOL.

[Jon S.]

On the contrary Donald, as the late David Broder documented in his book on direct democracy, Democracy Derailed, the initiative process is as much, if not more, dominated by interest groups than is the regular legislative process.

[Donald Pay]

Jon S.,

Broder? So you get your "facts" from a dead Washington elitist who skimmed the issue? You need to go much deeper into the issues and the process than Broder did to understand what goes on with I & R.

First, it is true that the special interests turn to I&R in states where the legislature can't be bought or controlled by them as easily. Thus, California's I & R process has served as a tool for special interests, because the legislatures there are less likely to cave in to special interest lobbying. But in states like South Dakota, where the special interest elites run the government, the elites don't turn to I & R, but seek to to restrict its use.

Second, the I & R process used to be exclusively a tool of the people to reign in government and special interests. There used to be campaign donation limits and bans on corporate donations that provided some measure of protection against special interest domination of I & R. With a string of Supreme Court decisions over the last thirty years providing special rights to corporations, striking down limits on donations to ballot measures and the demise of the fairness doctrine, the public can be and have been shut out of the discussion more easily. This is not a problem of the I & R, however. This is just a part of the broader problem of wealthy elites and corporations being able to dominate the entire political system, including the I & R, because of wrong-headed court decisions that favor corporate domination.

[Bree S.]

It's a dangerous step closer to pure democracy. And anything that attempts to change the way our government was originally set up, I am strongly against.

[Donald Pay]

Bree S.,

Who cares whether you are strongly against? Legislators in South Dakota proposed this as an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution. It passed the Legislature and by nearly a two-thirds vote of the electorate has been a part of the tradition, culture and custom of South Dakota for over 110 years. Courts have decided the Initiative and Referendum are fully constitutional. You and your goofy elitist ideology are no match to the grand Constitution, traditions, culture and customs of the great people of South Dakota, who in their wisdom use this great provision to tame corruption and elitist control over our representative democracy.

[Bree S.]

If you thought about it harder Donald you would realize that it is actually a window to elitist control.

[Donald Pay]

No, I would say in South Dakota the Governor and the Legislature provide elitist control, and the only way the people can sometimes change that is through the initiative and referendum.

[larry kurtz]

Doug and Don have watched the SDGOP scrambling after its Janklow head has been lopped, it's important to remember that he South Dakota political process is controlled by the Governors Club, Lee Schoenbeck, and the Church: legal racketeering.

While Stace Nelson is a loud, iron-fisted populist he might just draw enough attention from Mercer, who just ignores the corruption in Pierre to protect his church, and fire up the journos like Montgomery, short-timers with nothing to lose by exposing Pierre.

[larry kurtz]

Anti-concurrent causal clause: expect to hear it a bunch in the upcoming legislative session.

[Bree S.]

I think that was a rude comment about Mercer, Larry. He's often dropping interesting bits of information about the government in Pierre on his blog. Most recently the GFP.

[larry kurtz]

Mercer has everything to lose by exposing Pierre for what it is: with some luck Tom Lawrence will arise as a more powerful colonoscope to ream out the clinched bowels of Hughes County, too.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: Mrs. O'Leary doesn't have to approve of the Chicago fire just because her cow started it. Donald's comment is dispositive. The "elites" are just elites because we put them in office.