How I'm Voting This Afternoon

Go ahead, ask anyone that knows me. I hate politics. There are many issues that people argue over and no one is going to change their stance, abortion being the main one. But as the contributer of the word cobloggeration, I feel I need to add my two cents on the SD election.

Constitutional Amendment C - South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage.
Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

I do not support this amendment. Heck, I don't support the current law. I do support separation of church and state. If a church doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple that is fine with me. But why can't they get a marriage license from the county? They are living together, supporting each other, and loving each other; why can't they get the tax benefits too?

Amendment D - The State Constitution currently requires that all taxable property be valued for tax purposes at no more than its actual value, and that all property be classified and taxed uniformly. The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would base the taxable value of property upon “acquisition value” for property sold after January 1, 2007. The Legislature may authorize the assessed value of such property to be annually adjusted by up to three percent, using the 2003 assessed property valuation as the base year. The taxable value of the property may be further adjusted if the property has changed use or classification or has been subject to
addition, improvement or destruction. The limitations of this amendment will not apply to centrally assessed property or to any property sold prior to January 1, 2007.

I do not support this amendment. This amendment does not support the economy. This amendment claims to support the elderly, but doesn't. What this amendment does is base the property taxes off of the selling price rather than the assessed value. This will lessen the tax on people living in homes for long periods of time. It hurts the elderly, most older people do not stay in the same home they raised their children in. The move to a smaller home or one all on one floor. This amendment hurts new home buyers (like myself). It won't keep me from buying home sometime, but I would have to take on a larger share of the tax burden than say my parents (who have more savings and make more than I do).

Amendment E - Citizens serving on juries, school boards, city councils, county commissions, or in similar capacities, and prosecutors and judges, are all required to make judicial decisions. Their decisions may be reversed on appeal, or they may be removed from office for misconduct or by election. However, they cannot be made to pay money damages for making such decisions. This allows them to do their job without fear of threat or reprisal from either side. The proposed amendment to the State Constitution would allow thirteen special grand jurors to expose these decision makers to fines and jail, and strip them of public insurance coverage and up to one-half of their retirement benefits, for making decisions which break rules defined by the special grand jurors. Special grand jurors are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters. The proposed amendment is retroactive. The special grand jurors may penalize any decision-maker still alive for decisions made many years ago. If approved, the proposed amendment will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US
Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

The first time I heard about this amendment I supported it. But since I have learned too much about it to even consider such a thing. My democratic colleague was right in his comment. I learned from my sister, a political science major at USD, that it was started by someone who lost a case or suit (I forgot the details). I would consider supporting it in the case of judges and the attorney general's office, but I do not support it in the case of a jury. Serving on a jury is a civic duty, but you should not fear the consequences of an honest decision. And the amendment should not let this special grand jury make up it's own rules. That and the retroactive bit are just foolhardiness ;)

Amendment F - This proposed amendment to the State Constitution includes recommendations by the Constitution Revision Commission. The amendment would remove the current limitation on expense reimbursements received by legislators, and would allow legislators to receive salary, per diem, expenses and mileage reimbursement as provided by law. The amendment would remove the current specific prohibitions against enacting private or special laws. The Legislature would be restricted by a general prohibition against enacting a special law when a general or local law can be made applicable. The amendment would remove the Congressional term limit, which the federal courts have found unconstitutional. The procedure for introduction of a bill would be shortened. The amendment would require a two-thirds vote to close a legislative session to the public and prohibit any vote to be taken in a closed session. The amendment would allow the Legislature to exercise emergency powers in the event of man-made and natural disasters.

I do not support this amendment. While the beginning of it sounds good, I do not support allowing the legislature to close any meetings or sessions to the public.

Initiated Measure 2 - South Dakota currently taxes tobacco products. The proposed law would increase taxation on tobacco products sold in the state. The tax on a 20 stick cigarette package would be raised by $1.00; the tax on a 25 stick cigarette package would be raised by $1.25.
The tax on all other tobacco products such as cigars, roll-your-own, and chewing tobacco, would increase from 10 percent to 35 percent of the wholesale price. The proposed law would deposit up to $30 million of tobacco tax revenue into the state general fund. The next $5 million, if
any, will be deposited in the tobacco prevention and reduction trust fund. Tobacco tax revenue in excess of $35 million, if any, will be divided among the property tax reduction fund, the education enhancement trust fund, and the health care trust fund. The proposed law also establishes continuous appropriations out of the tobacco prevention and reduction trust fund for specified purposes.

I support this measure. It is a use tax, so you can avoid paying it by not smoking. Even better would be a law like Washington passed last year banning smoking in ALL public places including bars, etc. There is an exception for clubs like the VFW and American Legion in it.

Initiated Measure 3 - State law currently allows local school boards to establish the start of a regular school term on any date. The proposed law would prohibit local school boards from establishing the start of a regular school term prior to the last day of August.

I do not support this measure. School boards should be able to choose their own start date and end date.

Initiated Measure 4 - This initiative would allow persons, including minors with parental consent, with a debilitating medical condition, to be certified to grow (not more than six plants), possess (not more than one ounce) and use small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes.
“Debilitating medical condition” is defined to include cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, or a chronic, debilitating condition that produces cachexia, wasting syndrome, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, including epileptic seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by spinal injury, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease or fibromyalgia or any other
medical condition approved by the Department of Health. Certification may be accomplished by submitting medical records to the Department of Health or by submitting a doctor’s recommendation. A person may not drive while impaired by marijuana and may not smoke marijuana in any place where tobacco smoking is prohibited. Growth, possession and use of marijuana will still be illegal under federal law but certification is a defense to criminal prosecution under state law.

I do not support this measure. The law would still forbid the sell of marijuana. By allowing growth of it for medical purposes, it will make it even easier for youth to get a hold of it.

Initiated Measure 5 - State law currently allows state employees to use vehicles owned or leased by the State only for state business. There is a limited exception for state employees with a supervisor’s approval. The Governor and certain law enforcement personnel are
exempt. The proposed law requires aircraft owned or leased by the State to be used only for state business, with no exceptions. A person violating this provision would now be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

I do not support this measure. Currently, when the state plane is used for non-state business the state is reimbursed. This additional cash flow may be small compared to the budget but it is useful in maintaining the state plane.

Initiated Measure 7 - The State operates video lottery as authorized by State law. During the last year, the State received approximately one hundred twelve million dollars ($112,000,000.00) from video lottery which is 11% of the state general fund budget. The proposed law would repeal video lottery and eliminate this source of revenue.

I do not support this measure. It would be nice to be rid of a state funding source dependent on gambling, but I do not see a logical successor to the funding. Also, this is like a use tax, so no one's arm is being twisted to play the games.

Initiated Measure 8 - State laws impose a four percent tax on the gross receipts of companies providing wireless telecommunications (cell phone) services instead of a property tax. Last year the State received approximately eight and one-half million dollars ($8,500,000.00) from the cell phone tax. Forty percent (40%) of these revenues are distributed to counties based on population; the balance goes to the State. The proposed law would repeal this tax, and eliminate this source of revenue.

I do not support this measure. I own a cell phone and yet I support this tax. I am still paying less than I did in Washington and this is a use tax... so no one is forced to pay it.

Referred Law 6 - Current South Dakota law generally allows a pregnant woman to obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. House Bill 1215 would prohibit any person, at any time, from providing any medicine or other substance to a pregnant woman for the specific purpose of terminating her pregnancy. However, a person may provide a contraception substance to a woman without penalty prior to the time her pregnancy could be determined by conventional medical testing. HB 1215 would also prohibit any person, at any time, from using any instrument or procedure on a pregnant woman for the specific purpose of terminating her pregnancy, unless the person is a licensed physician performing a medical procedure to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. Any person other than the pregnant woman who violates the provisions of HB 1215 would commit a felony. If approved, HB 1215 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the US Constitution. If so, the State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

I do not support this law. It gives no exceptions for rape or health of the woman. It will likely be declared unconstitutional. This is an issue that I cannot stand. It is nearly impossible to change anyone's mind on it. So I will not say anymore about it.