Last updated on 2014.07.13
Some legislators have been talking referring tax hikes to a public vote. The referendum idea has hit a snag: a 1995 advisory opinion from the South Dakota Supreme Court saying that we can only pass tax increases by two-thirds vote of the Legislature or by public initiative.
Even if referring new taxes to the voters (à la Arizona 2010) were constitutional, fixing the state's structural deficit by referendum would be a bad idea. Waiting for an initiated measure to get rolling could be even worse. As I review the statutes on initiative and referendum, I can't find any line allowing for special elections. According to the Secretary of State, the deadline for filing initiative petitions is November 1, 2011, which means any initiative goes on the 2012 general election ballot. Can we wait that long to fix our budget?
Now I do see that we have called a special election for a referendum, back in 1993 to expand gambling in Deadwood. So suppose we could have a statewide vote on a tax increase this year. Suppose that the Legislature has the power to set that special election date as early as June. The Legislature would still have to pass a budget by the end of its session. Public schools would still have to conduct contract negotiations and start hiring and firing this spring. All sorts of fiscal decisions would have to be made before the voters would get the chance to say Yea or Nay to any referred tax increase. To make new fiscal year decisions (starting July 1!) contingent upon the results of a special election in June is a recipe for chaos.
I'm usually all about public votes. But like Mr. Nightlinger in The Cowboys, while I have the inclination, maturity, and wherewithal, I don't have the time.
Legislators, the crisis is here now. You are in Pierre. You are at the wheel. We elected you to decide. Now decide.
Of course they should take action. If the public doesn't like it--they can use the referral process which puts a "stay" until the vote in 2012
In the South Dakota legislature, if the decision making gets tough, the tough refer it to the voters or something like that. You are correct Cory, the time to make this decision is now. Senator Haverly also has the right idea, the legislature has all the information they need right now to make a decision about raising taxes and the SD voters do not. I agree with Mr. Johnson, the legislature needs to do the job they were elected to do and if SD voters don't like it, they can let the legislators know in the next election.
The SD legislature and legislators are incompetent. They have been incompetent for at least the past 6 years in which the state ran structural deficits; in which the state required federal spending, and later bailouts, to faux balance the books. The solution is easy. Muster the will to suspend the $520 million in socialistic corporate subsidies, welfare, and tax breaks for 2 years. SD does not need new taxes. SD needs to make present taxes equitable. SD needs to have the government stop picking winners and losers. And SD needs one less dysfunctional legislative house and no more than 49 legislators.
John, those are some pretty harsh words. We can certainly disagree with the speed of their efforts, BUT those who serve in the legislature do not do it for the glory, power or money. We, the people, elect them to serve us in Pierre.
The millions of dollars you refer to help pay for services for those who cannot provide for themselves: the children of the poor, the aged and the infirm. There are real consequences to spending cuts. We need to spend our limited resources wisely, innovate out of necessity to become ever more efficient and take responsibility for ourselves. We can become more than what we are now and spend less in the long run.
Our constitution provides an initiative process so the people can bring issues to a vote without the legislature. All it takes it is the ability to collect enough valid signatures.