HB 1290 Rejected (Public/Private partnership investor transparency)
The South Dakota House of Representatives Judiciary Committee decided it was OK for Huether to keep hiding stuff from us in rejecting HB 1290. Let the secrets continue!
The South Dakota House of Representatives Judiciary Committee decided it was OK for Huether to keep hiding stuff from us in rejecting HB 1290. Let the secrets continue!
Advocates, A bad bill is up tomorrow (Wed) Feb.14, 3:30pm.
 HB 1275 would all but abolish the initiated measure process. Its burdensome signature gathering requirements are designed to quash our ability to participate in direct democracy by creating arbitrary requirements by senate district. There’s a good letter in today’s Argus about this.Â
Please urge these Rep’s to OPPOSE HB1275. Before 3:30 tomorrow(Wed), contact House State Affairs committee: Julie.Bartling@sdlegislature.gov, Arch.Beal@sdlegislature.gov, Lynne.DiSanto@sdlegislature.gov, Steven.Haugaard@sdlegislature.gov, Spencer.Hawley@sdlegislature.gov, Leslie.Heinemann@sdlegislature.gov, Isaac.Latterell@sdlegislature.gov, David.Lust@sdlegislature.gov, Mark.Mickelson@sdlegislature.gov, Kent.Peterson@sdlegislature.gov, Lee.Qualm@sdlegislature.gov, Larry.Rhoden@sdlegislature.gov, Tona.Rozum@sdlegislature.govÂ
This measure could make the initiative process impossible to use altogether. Currently, initiated measures require signatures from voters numbering at least 5% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial contest. HB 1275 would require signatures numbering that 5% in each of 2/3 of all senate districts in South Dakota. This geographic signature requirement would make it nearly impossible to place initiated measures on the ballot in the future.Â
• How many people even know their senate district? Currently, you write your county on every petition you sign, not your legislative district. HB1275 would replace that by requiring you to write your senate district instead. Every 10 years there is redistricting, which moves senate district lines. County lines don’t move.
• Requiring every signer to place their senate district of registration on the ballot is a wishful expectation that would invalidate hundreds of otherwise valid signatures.Â
• Grassroots efforts would be woefully overwhelmed by this burdensome requirement.Â
• Making matters worse, HB 1275 states that signatures from a particular senate district can ONLY be collected by circulators from that same senate district. Â
• You would have to have 35 people, one from each district, standing together, petition in hand, in order to gather signatures at the State Fair or on college campuses. Â
• HB 1275’s new requirements apply to initiated measures only, not to a referendum or an initiated constitutional amendment. They do not apply to the signatures people must gather to run for state-wide offices. This clearly indicates the anti-initiative purpose of this bill.
• Elections already serve the purpose of letting all South Dakotans weigh in – one voter, one vote.
• This is clearly an attack on the initiative process.Â
HB 1275 is a bad bill. It doesn’t need amendments. It needs to go away. It would make it all but impossible for citizens to utilize their direct democracy process. It did not come from the Initiative and Referendum Task Force. It would only serve to undermine the initiative process.
Â
Is what Rep. Mark Mickelson doing with new swine CAFO construction unethical and a direct conflict of interest? Mark and his partner Paul Kostboth formed a company called A1 Development Solutions. Rep. Mickelson is directly benefiting from CAFO construction which Mickelson is orchestrating through weakening of zoning regulations from the state down to the local level.
Rep. Mickelson has already listed his partnership with Kostboth as a conflict in his legislative financial interest form filed with the Secretary of State. Should the next step for Mickelson be to decide which job he wants to do? To do both raises a lot of questions.
Is it clear that Rep. Mark Mickelson has a direct conflict of interest which would force him to resign as a legislator or withdraw as business partner in A1 Development Solutions? Is there middle ground on this issue? Maybe Rep. Mickelson could put his money in a solar power company instead, as long as he is not the prime sponsor of legislation to help that solar power company in South Dakota?