Go figure, Mark Barnett awarded a stay;
In a lawsuit regarding an attempt to put the ban up to a public vote, Circuit Judge Mark Barnett today granted a motion to stay the ban.
A coalition opposing the legislation asked for the stay, and the state did not oppose it.
What bothers me is that they failed in their petition drive. Why reward that failure? I have said they have a right to challenge the outcome, but until they can prove the petitions are legal (which they are not as of right now) the law should go into affect. Once again, South Dakota has proved once again – Business first, citizens second.
When SB2 was passed in 2007,great debate raged about who should determine if a petition was substantially complete. It was decided by the legislature that the decision on substantial compliance should be left with the court. Secretary Nelson cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. The Attorney General cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. What is it about this relatively simlple concept that you fail to grasp?