Bob Mercer meanders through Initiated Measure 15, the voter initiative proposing an extra-penny sales tax to fund K-12 education and Medicaid. He tries to stir some mud about a potential "legal mess" if IM15 passes:
The constitution reserves to the people the right to propose any measure. This is the initiative being used for IM 15.
The constitution also reserves to the people the right to refer to a vote any measure passed by the Legislature.
The exceptions to referral, as stated in the constitution (in somewhat clumsy language), are "such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions."
If the Legislature did change the language of the IM 15 at a later date, the constitution would appear to prohibit a referral of that act.
Likewise unclear is whether a tax measure voted into effect by the people can later be repealed through a vote of the people.
Under the power of initiative that would seem to be the case, but the answer isn't specifically clear in the constitution [Bob Mercer, "Tax Measures on State's Ballot Present Big Decisions," Mitchell Daily Republic, October 8, 2012].
On further review of South Dakota's Constitution, Article 3, Section 1, I dare to suggest the situation isn't nearly as muddy as Mercer claims. Our initiative clause says we the people may "propose measures." There is no qualification on "measures." "Measures" must thus include the ability to repeal an initiative by initiative. It's pretty clear to me that if we pass IM15 this year, we could repeal it by initiative later.
Likewise, the Legislature is free to amend or repeal IM15 if it passes popular muster. "This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure," reads the state constitution. "Any measure"—that would include measures changing measures passed by the voters. It might be political suicide, but it's clearly constitutional.
The only possible "legal mess" that Mercer correctly identifies is the possibility that the Legislature might try to insulate the issue from further voter action by declaring a change to IM15 "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions." The legal arguments would likely revolve around immediate. But would legislators want to risk both a legal argument on that term and the wrath of voters whose will they would subvert by locking an IM15 repeal away from referrability?
The initiative and referendum law is clear: the voters can initiate or refer darn near any measure they want. The Legislature can then do whatever it wants with whatever we initiate or refer.
The "wrath of voters" will not be seen in a state where politics is dominated by one party.
A lot of people probably read Mr. Mercer. A whole bunch because he's a real media guy, so a whole bunch probably scowl at him too. But pointing out that IM15 (Penny for T Denny) is very similar to that old Jail For Judges nutjob thing of a few years ago is telling. That is why I think you should have to pass a test or something before you can sign a petition. And young Mr. Gant has shown us you need to pass a tougher test if you want to float one around for signatures.
Sure seems funny to see conservatives and the Chambers going after T Denny....a true South Dakota capitalist, job creator and philanthropist.
But if SD Chamber Dave Owen and the rest of the Chambers like to push the "Penny for T Denny" slogan, well that's just sad. If they don't like mocking Sanford, well they aren't doing a very good job of stopping the people they are paying to push that little saying.
Grud, please do explain how IM15 is anything remotely like Jail for Judges.
Ms. Jana, I find it obvious.
Both items (Penny for T Denny and Jail for Judges) were initiated by a consortium of groups who found themselves unable to forward their own agendas through the South Dakota legislatures so the coalitioned together and got a bunch of signatures by standing in front of Walmart and liquor stores that take food stamps and slapped something sloppy and self-serving on the ballot. Now Hospitals and Schools might seem a little more tolerable than other groups that some thing more "fringe" or "tinfoil" but it is the same process. Even my friend Sibby who yelled at me just the other day agrees with me on this.
Mercer does raise an interesting point. The Constitutional language does state "immediate" and it does appear to apply to "support of the state government and its existing public institutions." Just about every phrase would be litigated to the max.
What does "immediate" mean? What's "existing" and what's an "institution?"
I think the Legislature would be very wary of screwing with this, though, because the courts could end up vastly expanding the referendum.
Why is this "a penny for T Denny"? He doesn't own the Sanford Hospitals, he owns a credit card company and his only connection to the hospitals is that he donated millions to them and they changed the name of the hospital to recognize his donation. T Denny will not profit from this tax if passed.
Good point, Nick! The money won't go to Denny. But should we be bothered by more money going to a hospital system that is spending millions of dollars on naming rights and sports facilities?
Grudz, as usual, your reasoning is specious. The fact that both 2006 Amendment E and IM15 are using the initiative process is the only hard similarity. IM15 is not sloppy. It is not a Constitutional amendment. It raises no danger of throwing the state into judicial gridlock. It is not an attempt by out-of-state whackos to hijack South Dakota's small market to shoehorn their fantasies into law. It is not a poison pill proposal fronting for quasi-libertarian militia types. It's a sensible, straightforward proposal for increasing an existing tax to pay for existing programs. If you want to beat IM15, you can do so without making silly mis-analogies.
Nick, I think it was Representative/Reverend Hickey that is pushing the lie against Mr. Sanford. He calls it hardball political messaging.
He commented on it over at the SDWC... He also says that Sanford Health should start "adopting more mission critical programs at schools that have been adversely affected by our efforts to deal with that structural deficit."
Funny he forgot to mention the job killing effect of those cuts on South Dakota nursing homes and other medicaid providers...and of course the vulnerable children and grandparents that were adversely affected by the GOP cuts.
IM15 does what the GOP controlled legislature couldn't do or wouldn't do...take care of South Dakota kids, the vulnerable and elderly.
"The Legislature can then do whatever it wants with whatever we initiate or refer."
Yup. And you can bet they will. Then ... meaning after a few years, when everybody has forgotten why they originally voted for IM 15.
Big problem nationwide: Dear politicians, We don't trust you.
Here's just one story on the impact of the GOP cuts to Medicaid from 2011. It hit a lot of people other than the big hospitals.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110701/NEWS/107010312/Pinch-Medicaid-cuts-sets-today
Hey, maybe we can give those cuts a clever "hardball political messaging" name.
Just remember the rules...it has to be mean and don't worry about honesty. Wonder if Pastor Hickey will ever reveal the politician who coined "Penny for T Denny?"
Perhaps Rep. Hickey can tell us who's behind the new Penny F. T-Denny Twitter account.
Stan, you get me thinking: If I'm a legislator, I always face the possibility that the bill I fight for this year could get repealed next session by a new crop of legislators. That shouldn't stop me from proposing and voting for good legislation. Should voters look at IM15 the same way and reject the possibility of amendment or repeal as a reason to vote No?
OK, Mr. H. You are probably right on all that other stuff. But you can't deny this:
IM 15 (Penny for T Denny) would raise MY taxes to go ONLY to certain groups. It would raise more money from Spearfish than probably Spearfish would get back in their Rapid City Regional Hospital reapings or the school district. I bet Rapid City Proper citizens who have their taxes raised a full 25% would see some random 5 or 6% increase in funding to their schools who would then rathole the money and not give it to good teachers.
Is any of that incorrect?
Let it be known that nobody wants to take on old Grudznick over the idiocy of goofballs standing in front of Walmart and liquor stores that take food stamps to put lunacy on the ballot, eh? EH?
(disclaimer: somebody with math might know that Madison would pay less with a 25% increase on their food than their schools would get and that they would lock it into paying their good teachers more. I don't know math like that.)
I have learned some googles. What does this mean:
Spearfish 40-2 $10,879,262 $3,908,080 35.92% $2,874,121 $4,810,887 167.39%
They have like 167% of the needed squirrelled away? I don't know I was just shown how to google this stuff but Mr. H and others with more math than me probably know this stuff. Why is this not part of the whining for more taxes FROM ME and then TO JUST YOU (and T Denny)?
Spearfish may take in more but you have to remember people from Meade County or Butte County will also spend money in Lawrence County. Just like people from Hutchinson and Bon Homme will spend in Yankton and so on. So when it comes back, Bon Homme school district will take in less, then Yankton so when push comes to shove I'm guessing it will all get pretty evened out. So the X-county/city takes in more and then is redistributed is blown out of proportion.
As far as the Penny for T-Denny? You serious? You think he gets any of that money? I'm not the biggest T. Denny Sanford fan, or a hospital fan but trust me the medicare/medicaid part of the measure would affect many others then just T. Denny. What about all those nursing homes that are barely able to keep their doors open now, and if Mitt Romney was elected will probably be forced to close. The medicare part of the measure affects nursing homes way more so then hospitals. South Dakota is getting older as well. So that is where the impact is.
Grudz, your argument about the towns is unclear. IM15 raises the state sales tax, not the municipal sales taxes. It doesn't matter where you buy your groceries; your school gets its share of the extra-penny sales tax based on the number of kids your school has. Spearfish takes in more than Belle Fourche because Spearfish has more kids, which is exactly how the status quo funding formula works.
Where people get signatures is irrelevant. Voters are voters, wherever petitioners find them. IM15 circulators also went to civic groups meetings, community events, and door-to-door.
And again, as for your specious "certain groups" argument: that line indicts IM15 no more than saying that the gasoline tax only goes to certain groups who build our highways. Sure, the gas tax, like every tax, redistributes money, in this case eventually to road construction workers. The gas tax also gets us roads, which we all use and benefit from.
Same with IM15: it does the same thing your property tax does, buying you a quality education for all kids, which keeps your economy and society functional. It does the same thing as the Medicare tax taken from your paycheck, providing healthcare for other Americans to promote the general welfare.
Grudz, you don't have one unique argument that indicts IM15. I'm still not sure how I'll vote on it, but none of your arguments can logically pull me to the con side.
"It is not an attempt by out-of-state whackos to hijack South Dakota's small market to shoehorn their fantasies into law."
"IM15 does what the GOP controlled legislature couldn't do or wouldn't do...take care of South Dakota kids, the vulnerable and elderly."
The money will go into the pockets of the corporatists and the big government cohorts, not the kids, the vulnerable and the elderly. The money will be coming out of the pockest of the kids' parents, the vulnerable and the elderly everytime they buy something. And these special interests are international in nature, which goes beyond "out-of-state whackos".
Steve, Steve, Steve. If IM15 passes and we K-12 folks spend that money on more standardized tests from out-of-state corporations or on high-priced consultants and speakers, I'll join you in hollering. But if the school boards spend it to hire more teachers, to pay current teachers moral and competitive wages, and to invest in quality learning opportunities for kids, the kids will come out ahead with a better education system.
Education is not a special interest. It is a common interest of every citizen.
"Education is not a special interest. It is a common interest of every citizen."!!
Great Cory.
Thanks, Bill! I have a feeling we're going to need to say that a lot for the rest of this month and throughout the 2013 Session in Pierre.