Tags: South Dakota

7.10.14

July 10, 2014. South Dakota is considered a mecca among the states for initiatives and referendum, and in fact, was a pioneer for this form of direct democracy. According to a 1992 paper presented to the Center for Great Plains Studies:

In 1898 South Dakota became the first state to amend its constitution to give its citizens the option of the initiative-in which a given percentage of voters may propose a law, which then must be approved at the polls-and the referendum-in which a law proposed either by initiative or by the lawmaking body must then be approved by a given percentage of voters. These measures, also known as direct legislation, were seen by both voters and legislators as a way to reform democracy by making it more responsive to the people.

Read it all HERE.

Ever since, when it’s come to ballot initiatives, South Dakota has either been viewed as a bastion of democracy, or in the case of some measures, someone’s evil laboratory. Yet we persevere, and bad laws are usually given the boot by the voters.

What’s in store for voters this year? South Dakotans will be voting on three ballot measures. According to the Ballotpedia website, since 1990, an average of six measures have appeared on ballots in South Dakota. So., 2014 is actually a below-average year, based on the number of certified measures. Since 1990, 28 of 77 South Dakota ballot measures have been approved by voters, with 49 of 77, or 63.64 percent, of measures have been defeated.

The three measures couldn’t be more different if they’d tried.

The first measure, promoted by the South Dakota Democratic party, is to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 and increases it each year based on inflation.

Proponents believe it will help people of lower incomes. Opponents note that it will actually cost jobs, and increase unemployment, as they automate, or eliminate positions previously done by High School Students, who make up the bulk of minimum wage positions.

The second measure allows patients to choose a health care provider at no cost.

If approved by voters, the measure, which is sponsored by three South Dakota doctors, would end the restrictions put in place by insurance companies regarding which health care providers their clients can and cannot see. The measure would allow any health care provider to join an insurance company's network, assuming the provider agrees to the company's terms and conditions and works within the company's coverage area. This concept is known as "any willing provider."

Lastly is a measure forwarded to the voters from the South Dakota Legislature to expand the definition of gambling in Deadwood. Since it requires an amendment to the state constitution, it must be voted on by the people of South Dakota.

Amendment Q, upon voter approval, would permit the South Dakota state legislature to authorize roulette, keno, craps, limited card games and slot machines within the municipal limits of Deadwood. All municipal revenues derived from casinos would continue to be allocated towards the Historic Restoration and Preservation of Deadwood.

To find out more on these measures, visit the South Dakota Secretary of State's website HERE and Ballotpedia HERE.

For more information regarding South Dakota law, news, and ballot initiatives, contact the Goosmann Law Firm at info@goosmannlaw.com or call 712-226-4000.

Photo Copyright: scukrov / 123RF Stock Photo

Subscribe Our Blog

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. By visiting this website, blog, or post you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Goosmann Law Firm attorneys and website publisher. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Goosmann Law Firm, PLC, or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.