Screen-Shot-2015-01-30-at-5_58_17

Contact this guy and let him know where to stick his bill.

UPDATE:

SB 166 will go to Senate State Affairs (date not set yet)
The committee is listed here:
Clicking on any name on that list will get you to contact info.
You can read the bill here:
Sen Brown is contesting the argument refers to Section III, article 1 of the state constitution, first paragraph. It sets a maximum, but not a minimum, for the number of signatures that the state may require. SD’s practice has been to require 5% of the number of voters in the last election for governor, not 5% of all the registered voters whether they voted or not.

I have a feeling Corey was put up to this by the ALEC branch of the SD Republican party who is constantly losing at the ballot box when in comes to initiatives. They are PO’d about the minimum wage increase, and the potential of a PayDay lender interest cap.

Because initiatives and referenda tend to go badly for his party, Republican Senator Brown wants to repeal SDCL 2-1-5 and replace the signature count not on the number of people who actually voted in the last gubernatorial election but on the number who could have voted. Assuming he means registered voters on November 3, 2014, that’s 521,041. SB 166 would thus nearly double the number of signatures needed to get measures on the ballot, to 26,053.

And because he knows folks are already planning initiatives that he doesn’t like, Senator Brown includes an emergency clause in SB 166 to make sure no one could file an initiative before July 1 under the current, less onerous signature requirement.

South Dakotans, Senator Brown does not trust you. He wants to take away your constitutionally guaranteed power to make your own laws. Don’t let him do that. Write or call Senator Brown and ask him how Senate Bill 166 serves the public interest.

By l3wis

12 thoughts on “UPDATE: Senator Corey Brown wants to destroy the initiative process in SD”
  1. COULD HAVE VOTED includes the out of staters who use a PO box to escape their states income taxes and license RV’s. They’re substantially noncoherent. Nothing will ever happen in the legislature if these non-residents become a part of the count.

  2. I believe in your right to disagree with the bill but I feel that by leaving his address and phone numbers is not appropriate. Hope you leave that for all the people you agree with so that we can call them up and tell them where they can put their ideas also.

  3. Regarding last response, you hide behind a idea without a name. Guess you must be afraid that people will find out who you really are and what kind of person you are. I have no respect for your opinion if you hide behind your mother’s skirt.

  4. Everyone knows who Scott is, wow, really Mark? And you don’t like that he leaves the address and phone number of an elected official? Really? Are you kidding? And before you get pissed at me I am a lifelong republican (33 years now as a registered rep), very conservative who used to be very active within the party. I don’t always agree with Scott but in the 2 years or so I have been reading his blog he is 99% accurate with what he writes. Damn sure better than the Argus or Kelo TV. Chillax, dude.

  5. If you’re in the legislature or any elected office for that matter, YOUR CONTACT INFO GOES ONLINE, regardless, that’s the point of being in that office – you should be accessible and open to communication from your constituents. Why the stink about posting it here on a blog if it’s already posted on the legislature’s website? Please realize that political groups do this every day in email blasts to thousands of supporters.. take the gun rights groups for example, because they email out the numbers of their political opponents regularly to spring supporters into action. This is the name of the game.

  6. perhaps mark can tell us why he thinks this bill is a good idea, rather than ridiculing l3wis for posting info about it.

  7. Why do the entrenched Republicans so fear the voters they serve? Each year they further restrict the people of our state as to who can vote (but they won’t restrict the out-of-stater’s vote)

  8. It is interesting to note how quickly this bill surfaced after our new SOS, Shantel Krebs, was elected!

  9. Publish those numbers. Nothing wrong with a robocall fillibuster for stupid ideas. They do it to us for weeks before elections.

Comments are closed.