South Dakota Democratic Legislative Leaders Respond to Progress Made in Respecting the Will of the Voters

February 24, 2017

PIERRE, S.D. – At their weekly press conference yesterday, State Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Billie Sutton of Burke and State House Democratic Leader Spence Hawley of Brookings responded to the progress made this week in their efforts to honor the will of the voters by advancing campaign finance reform and government ethics reform this Legislative Session. These efforts continue years of Democratic efforts to reform government ethics and campaign finance in South Dakota, and were made more urgent after the Republican majority in Pierre overturned Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act passed by the voters in November, without a replacement in place.

“After the majority party in Pierre repealed Initiated Measure 22 without a replacement in place, Democrats in Pierre have been doing everything we can to fulfill our moral obligation and responsibility to honor the will of the voters and pass meaningful campaign finance and government ethics reform this session,” said Hawley. “This week, we did see some significant progress on the goal of reforming government ethics. Unfortunately, there was also a big setback in the efforts to reform campaign finance laws and reign in the influence of big money on South Dakota politics.”

“The good news is that HB 1076, which creates a Government Accountability Board, passed through the full House this week. We’re pleased that this bill – very similar to bills brought in the past by Democrats which were killed by the majority party – passed the House with some strong bi-partisan support, and has bi-partisan sponsors in the Senate,” Hawley said.

Sutton said the news was not so good in the area of campaign finance reform.

“Last week, Democratic efforts to amend SB 54 to reinstate the contribution limits passed by the voters in IM22, were defeated along party lines in the Senate State Affairs Committee.  Not only did the majority party defeat these efforts to respect the voters’ wishes to limit the influence of big money on South Dakota politics, they also railroaded through the committee several last-minute amendments which raised the already lax contribution limits proposed in the original bill,” Sutton said.

Sutton also noted that when Democrats tried to bring the amendment to reinstate the contribution limits of IM 22 on the Senate floor the Republicans tabled the amendment, allowing no debate.

“Democrats believe the will of the people on campaign finance deserved to have a debate on the Senate floor. I guess the majority party didn’t feel the people’s voice deserved to be heard. In its current form SB 54, doesn’t just ignore the will of the people, it opens the flood gates once again for big money to influence our elections,” said Sutton.

Despite this setback, Sutton and Hawley pledged Democrats would continue to work to respect the will of the voters and do whatever they could to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation.

“We Democrats have introduced bills to reform government ethics and campaign finance laws for years, and we will continue to make good-faith efforts to work with the majority party to make the kind of reforms in campaign finance and government ethics called for by the voters in November,” Sutton said. “We call on our friends across the aisle to do the same.”

Pursuing Constitutional Reforms – A column by South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard

Pursuing Constitutional Reforms
By Governor Dennis Daugaard

 February 3, 2017

Being governor is a serious responsibility, and I’ve never taken it lightly. Sometimes, it means making a difficult decision that is necessary, but unpopular to some. 

In my first year in office, our state faced a large budget deficit. There was not an easy or popular solution. As a new governor, I proposed ten percent cuts to eliminate the deficit. Many legislators supported me in making that tough decision. There were also those who criticized aspects of the plan, without proposing a workable alternative. That is the luxury of being in opposition – one can rely on the majority to make the difficult decisions.

We have faced a similar dilemma this year, because of the passage of Initiated Measure 22. Elected officials have an obligation to respect the will of the voters, but we also have a duty to defend our state constitution. Unfortunately, Initiated Measure 22 has numerous constitutional defects – so numerous, in fact, that a circuit judge held it was unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt” and suspended it from staying in effect. In addition, the law was poorly drafted; even its supporters agreed it had problems that needed to be fixed.

There was no perfect answer in this situation. Leaving Initiated Measure 22 in place was not a viable option, due to its constitutional issues and other problems. It could not be enforced as written.

Another option was to repeal Initiated Measure 22, and return to the old laws. That was also not a good option, because it would have ignored the will of the voters.

The best option, in my opinion, is to replace Initiated Measure 22 with new pieces of legislation that are constitutional and workable, and that meet the same goals as those the voters had in mind. It’s not a perfect option, but it balances our need to respect the voters with our need to follow the state constitution.

I am joining with legislators to follow that middle path. Bills have already been introduced to address the important aspects of Initiated Measure 22. One bill will regulate gifts from lobbyists to state officials. A number of bills offer processes to deal with ethics complaints, and I am working with legislators to decide which bill would work best, or if we should combine the best ideas from several bills. The Secretary of State also has a bill to revise campaign finance laws, and there are ideas to improve that bill as well.

My commitment this session is that we will develop a constitutional, workable, responsible plan to respond to the will of the voters. If opponents disagree with that plan, I hope they will propose an alternative that is also comprehensive, constitutional and workable.