If you are confused by all the ballot issues…

Maybe this will help.

Tonchi Weaver has taken the time to study these issues from a conservative perspective.  These are her conclusions:

Amendment R: Sets up another unelected, tax-funded administrative board paid by taxpayers with a budget provided by those same taxpayers. Members of the board will be appointed with heavy influence by favored industries (donors). With this amendment, the legislature is asking voters for the authority to do what it has already done in statute. (They have already passed laws to expand the number of board members from five to nine.) If this goes through, the State will be able to shift the cost of Tech schools onto County Commissions, City Councils, and local school boards, but the State would retain control of the money. NO on Amendment R!

Amendment S: Also called Marsy’s Law, this amendment is supposed to benefit victims of violent crimes base on a California case in 1991. It was put on the ballot by paid circulators pushing this change to the constitution in many states. I believe this is the wrong approach. Amending the Constitution is less effective than expanding the victims’ protections already in statute. Statutory protections are enforceable and more desirable because they contain penalty clauses that are spelled out in the law, giving direction to the judiciary. As written, there is concern that this new “right” expands the definition of ‘victim’, and that the criminal justice system could become merely an instrument of “vengeance” for relationships gone bad. No on Amendment S!

Amendment T:

What is it about unelected 9-member boards that is so appealing to some? This would establish an appointed board for the purpose of re-drawing Legislative District maps. The proponents claim it would take partisanship out of the process, but right now there are equal numbers of Dems and Reps setting the district boundaries. The current system is run by the Legislature and heavily influenced by the party in power, but it’s still preferable to unelected cronies (donors). Legislators are bound to certain transparencies; appointed boards are not.

No on Amendment T!

Amendment U:

This is one of two lending bills on the ballot. This one has a loophole that could allow usurious rates on payday-type loans in some cases. If both lending bills were to pass, it would create a crisis, since the provisions of the bills are incompatible. It would be better to address payday lending in statute.

No on Amendment U!

Amendment V:

This bill is not about fairness; it is about getting liberals elected. V is a non-transparency-in-elections bill that would duplicate the “top two” system that has put California in such dire straits. Party affiliations (governing philosophy) would be erased from the ballot, making it likely that people would be elected based only on name recognition. Amendment V would exponentially increase the influence of money and the media in choosing candidates.

No on Amendment V!

Initiated Measure 21:

This is the “good” lending bill that would tamp down the interest rates on so called “payday” loans. Because of the other ballot issue, I recommend voting NO on both….this could be done with a statute, and most likely will be accomplished this next session.

NO on 21!

Initiated Measure 22:

This Measure proposes giving two $50 vouchers drawn on the state treasury to every registered SD voter to give in their name to the candidate of their choice. Yup, that’s right; public money will go to candidates for office to finance their campaigns. As a bonus, we would also need a whole new taxpayer-funded government agency to cut the checks and keep the records.

NO on 22!

Initiated Measure 23:

This measure is designed to undercut South Dakota’s Right to Work laws. It is being pushed by union interests in states with RTW laws. These laws were hard-fought for a reason. Unions are already allowed organizing time on the clock. You can join a union any day of the year, but there is a narrow 10-day window each year during which you can drop out, and that window is different for everyone. If you miss it, you have to wait a full year to try again. Seems to me that unions are already holding all the cards.

No on 23!

Referred Law 19:

This is a manipulation of campaign law by the Republicans in order to eliminate challenges from Independents. It is a strong-arm tactic. I rarely agree with the man who wrote the opposition of this referendum, but he is right on this one.

No on 19!

Referred Law 20:This refers the law that was passed in the Legislature to modify the will of the people when they voted to increase the minimum wage. The people voted to increase minimum wage across the board; the legislature changed that to make it a two-tier increase with employees under 18 getting a lower wage. Although I disagree with the concept of a minimum wage, I will vote against this referred law. The Legislature has a bad habit of overturning or nullifying the will of the people through subsequent laws. That practice must stop. I predict this one will pass, but it will do so without my vote.

No on 20!

In the link below, you can click on each of these issues in the grid and scroll down to the campaign finance disclosure. Check out the amount of money financing each side and who is spending it to get a clearer picture.
https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_2016_ballot_measures

So, a “no” vote on every one is a solid conservative position.

Thank you , Tonchi Weaver!

***Gordon Howie is an author and CEO of Life and Liberty Media***

“It’s not about right or left, it’s about Right or Wrong.”

Follow me on Twitter   Gordon Howie @GordonHowieSD

 “friend” me on facebook for daily updates

See more about Texas Longhorn Cattle, Real Estate, Music and Politics at www.ghowie.com

Our mission is to promote Conservative Christian principles, help the hurting and provide truth and information to a lost and dying world.