Tyler: "All of the Constitutional Amendment votes need a 'No.'"

Obese Earth hater Pat Powers believes Amendment K is a "wise investment." Like most of us do, retired South Dakota legislator, Kathy Tyler believes he's full of shit.

Here's a one post summary of the amendments:

The first is Amendment I which repeals Medicaid Expansion if federal funding goes below 90%.

Those who cared started fighting for Medicaid Expansion at its inception in 2010 (2014). Since the SD legislature wouldn't pass approval of the expansion that would provide health insurance for thousands of people below a certain poverty line, a citizen led petition drive with thousands of signatures got the issue on the ballot in 2022 where it passed with 56.21% of the vote. Since the legislature thought that the citizens didn't know what they were talking about, they voted to place Amendment I on the 2026 ballot.

So...here we are again.

I'm against the Amendment change for these reasons and am very willing to discuss. From the SOS's website:

"A vote NO would keep the South Dakota Constitution

unchanged and preserve Medicaid expansion as approved

by South Dakota voters in 2022.

Medicaid expansion provides health insurance to adults

with incomes up to $1,835 per month (about $22,00 per

year) for a single individual or $3,142 per month ($37,700

per year) for a family of three. Before expansion, many

low-income South Dakotans had no affordable way to see

a doctor or fill prescriptions.

A vote NO would allow approximately 30,000 South

Dakotans who receive insurance through Medicaid

expansion to keep their insurance and access the care

needed to stay healthy, support their families, work, and

contribute to their communities.

A vote NO would ensure that changes in federal funding

do not automatically take health coverage from South

Dakotans.

Statement from Deb Fischer-Clemens, RN, BSN, MHA"

-----------------------------------------------

Kind of boring, but so important #2--Constitutional Amendment J.. "clarifying that an individual must be a citizen of the United States to be eligible to vote."

Again, submitted by the legislature.

This rule is already established in South Dakota as stated on the South Dakota Secretary of State's website:

"12-4-1.2 Voter Registration form - Certification.

The voter registration form must include a certification of voter eligibility by which the applicant attests, under the penalty of perjury, that the applicant:

(1) Is a citizen of the United States;

(2) Will be eighteen years or older on or before the next election;

(3) Is a resident of the state of South Dakota;

(4) Has not been judged mentally incompetent;

(5) Is not currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction; and

(6) Authorizes the cancellation of a previous registration, if applicable."

And, Article VII of the state's constitution states the same:

" § 2. Voter qualification. Every United States citizen eighteen years of age or older who has met all residency and registration requirements shall be entitled to vote in all elections and upon all questions submitted to the voters of the state unless disqualified by law for mental incompetence or the conviction of a felony. The Legislature may by law establish reasonable requirements to insure the integrity of the vote."

Waste of time and not necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of boring #3--Constitutional Amendment K.

This amendment establishes a trust fund for the unclaimed property fund. Here is the AG's explanation.

"Under South Dakota statute, intangible property is presumed to be abandoned if it remains unclaimed by the owner for more than three years after it became payable or distributable. Examples of intangible property are traveler's checks, money orders, bank deposits, refunds, stocks, funds owed under a life insurance policy, and property held in a safe deposit box. Abandoned intangible property is transferred to the State Treasurer to hold while waiting for the owner to claim it. The State Treasurer must provide public notice of the abandoned property. This proposed constitutional amendment establishes a trust fund where unclaimed abandoned property' will be deposited. Portions of the interest and from this fund will be distributed into the general fund for the benefit of the state. This proposed amendment requires the Legislature to determine the amount to be distributed that promotes the growth of the trust fund and the distributed amount."

At the surface this sounds pretty good, but legislation such as this should be written and endorsed by the legislature in the form of legislation, a law, not a constitutional amendment. What happens if down the road, a glitch is found? The only option to change the constitution is via a state-wide ballot initiative.

The legislature passed this unanimously. Why? I have no idea. If there was that much support, legislation would have passed.

--------------------------------------------

Constitutional Amendment L is probably the most egregious of all the ballot questions. It mandates a 60% majority for an amendment to be passed by the people via the ballot.

Let's look at the history of this amendment proposed by the legislature.

Getting a referred law or constitutional amendment on the ballot for a vote can be done two ways---petitions with LOTS of signatures or Legislative mandate for constitutional changes. (See picture). It takes LOTS of work.

I think it all started with the minimum wage law referendum in 2014 which raised the minimum wage to $8.50. But the legislature didn't think the public knew what it was talking about, so it changed the law. It was referred again in 2020. This was the start of the legislature changing/killing referred laws. This led to petitioners referring constitutional amendments instead of laws even though the number of signatures is basically twice as much. Constitutional amendments cannot be changed by the legislature. It also led to numerous new rules governing the petition process..some okay; most not. But that's another topic.

So, now, the legislature wants to change it so that a 60% majority of voters is needed to pass a constitutional amendment. A simple majority will no longer rule. The reason given basically is that "we want to make sure the public knows what it really wants." (That's a translation from a candidate page.) Amendment L is an insult to voters; it's a punishment for the petition process; and it's a cop out for legislators who think the public doesn't know what it wants.