What are South Dakotans voting for Tuesday?

Is it taboo to announce what and whom you are voting for? I’m of the opinion the answer to that question is “no” — especially after this unconventional election. I’ve taken the time to research both the state and national elections and presented my opinions on each so I can justify which box I inevitably fill in Tuesday.

Although this whirlwind election has concentrated on the two candidates vying for the country’s highest office, it is also important to note there are many other issues voters will be expected to voice their opinion on.

All 70 seats in the chamber of House of Representatives at the state level are up for election in 2016, as are all 35 seats in the Senate. For more information on who is running in District 31, which includes Lawrence County, click here for information on the lone stateSenate candidate, and here for the candidates running for the state House of Representatives.

Presidential Election

In South Dakota it is quite likely that Donald Trump will win. We are a red state and that has remained true for decades. In fact, the most recent poll conducted by the Neilson Brothers puts Trump at 49 percent, Clinton at 35 percent, Gary Johnson is at 7 percent and undecided voters account for the remaining 9 percent.

As for America — my prediction is that Hillary Clinton and her “Stronger Together” campaign slogan will make headlines Wednesday morning with the announcement of the first female president.

Although I understand how significant this moment in history is — I’m voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. I don’t necessarily believe in everything his party stands for — but I do believe that he is empathetic to the path America is on and is passionate about representing his constituents rather than corporations and political action committees. Plus, he provides intricate details on how he stands on the issues — something I respect and appreciate as a voter. I just cannot back the others. You are supposed to vote for the person you agree with the most and for me it was Bernie Sanders — but we lost chance long ago and so on to the next best thing.

US Senate and House Election

At the state level Sen. John Thune and Rep. Kristi Noem lead in the polls. This is someone disheartening because Democratic candidates Jay Williams and Paula Hawks would have been refreshing to watch fight for South Dakota values in Washington.

I will be voting democrat on this one.

Why?

I personally know Sen. John Thune and I do not agree with his politics, or his views on civil rights, abortion and his stance on crime. It would be wonderful to have a fresh face and a fresh set of ideals represent South Dakota’s younger generation — most of whom take a completely different stance on the issues Thune supports.

I feel as though Kristi Noem has and will always be a puppet for the Republican Party. Her stance on the issues is perplexing at best. I mean a woman voting against reinstating the Violence Against Women Act and voting in favor of keeping abstinence education in our schools when studies show this doesn’t prevent teen pregnancies or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Come on Rep. Noem — are you actually a man dressed as a woman? You certainly vote as one. With that said, she is also someone we can’t count on to even provide a voice for South Dakotans and that has been proven time and time again. For example, a lot of controversy occurred during her first two years in office when she chose to earn a college degree rather than representing constituents on Capitol Hill and even more after Noem abandoned South Dakota ranchers after a 2013 blizzard that killed thousands of cattle and decimated ranches throughout the western half of the state. South Dakotans must truly believe change is possible if they think another two years with her is going to be beneficial to the progression of this state.

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

The Public Utilities Commission has been a good old’ boy club from the start. As one of the mainstays of state government, they regulate energy policies and function as a judicial body when making decisions.

But do they?

The commission has sided with corporate utility companies time and time again and despite the insight provided by his colleague Gary Hansen — voted in favor of the Dakota Access Pipeline that is already completed construction in the state.

Chris Nelson — although armed with years of experience — does not stand up for our environment and when it comes to energy it is vital we look to alternative resources.

Therefore I am voting for Henry Red Cloud who, “… for more than a decade, has devoted himself to developing his expertise with renewable energy applications that are environmentally sound, economically beneficial, and culturally appropriate.”

When I think of the future generations — I think of how it is all of our responsibilities to make sure they have clean air to breathe and clean water to nourish themselves.

Amendments and Measures on SD Ballot

Can you believe that the ballots in South Dakota are five pages! Don’t believe me — find your sample ballot by clicking here. This is due in large part to the high number of amendments and initiated measures we will be deciding on.

If anyone out there was as inundated as I was with pamphlets and postcards trying to sway us one way or the other on the numerous ballot initiatives you are probably as confused as I was — until I read the fine print and got an idea of what is behind each one.

South Dakotans will have an opportunity to vote for five different amendments to the constitution, three initiated measures and two referred laws. It is important to note that a “yes” vote on any of the amendments means you are in favor of making a change to the state Constitution and a “no” vote means you are in favor of leaving the state Constitution as is. The others — which also require a “yes” or “no” vote are a little more vague as to their outcome, so I definitely suggest anyone who remains uneducated or undecided to read further.

• Amendment R removes the state Board of Regents’ control of postsecondary technical educations instead of allowing the Legislature to decide how they are governed. This measure only applies to educational institutions that receive funding from the state and offer career and technical associate of applied science degrees, certifications or the equivalent of both. If passed, this change to the Constitution would not affect state funded education institutions offering associate’s degrees in art and science, bachelor’s degrees or post-graduate degrees.

• Amendment S — known to many as Marsy’s Law — expands victim’s rights to allow them an opportunity to be more involved and provide input during the judicial process and would protect those rights by placing them in the state Constitution. The measure defines a victim as “… a person who suffers direct or threatened harm as the result of any crime, attempted crime, or act of juvenile delinquency,” and states the rights granted through this amendment can be enforced by the victim themselves, the victim’s attorney or representative and the attorney for the government.

• Amendment T removes redistricting authority from the legislature and gives it to a separate commission. In South Dakota the State Legislature determines how voting district boundaries are drawn and both the senators and representatives who make up the body are elected within those legislative districts. As of today the state Constitution mandates the state evaluate those boundaries every 10 years — something of which must be accomplished in 2017. This amendment would take away that responsibility for the most republican body and give it to a redistricting commission made up of nine registered voters who are elected by a State Board of Elections. What I like the most about this amendment is that board will consist of representatives from all parties and they will require the redistricting commission to produce a draft map and allow for public comment within each district, as well as make sure every one of them is in compliance with state and federal law. But, what I like the most is how for three years immediately prior to and three years immediately after appointment, commission members may not hold office in certain state or local public offices, or in a political party organization.

• Amendment U limits the ability to set statutory interest rates for loans and contains a large loophole that will continue to allow them to charge unlimited interest rates to low-income South Dakotans. This is one of the more complicated measures when it comes to the definition. Those voting against the amendment are made up of mostly lenders who profit off of the short-term loans and argue that this would allow them to force a borrower to sign away their rights to an 18 percent loan and charge them whatever high interest rate the lender wants. — NOT cap the interest rates at a certain percentage. Those in favor, say this measure protects low-income South Dakotans by placing a strict 18 percent cap on interest rates, is far more stringent than that of other measures being proposed, and takes the extra step of amending the South Dakota constitution, which will ensure that the cap placed on interest rates are not undone or weakened by politicians. A similar ballot item is whether to vote against or in favor of Initiated Measure 21.

• Amendment V would establish nonpartisan elections for all voters in South Dakota in order to curtail the influence of political parties. This amendment eliminates those methods by establishing a nonpartisan primary to select candidates for all federal, state and county elected offices. Proponents of this measure believe this will be beneficial to all voters as it would require everyone to really look into their candidates rather than voting for them simply because they have an “R” or a “D” by their names. Meaning candidates will no longer be identified by party affiliation on the primary or general election ballot and that all qualified voters, regardless of party affiliation, may vote for any candidate of their choice. Once this occurs, this amendment would require the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election. If approved, a substantial re-write of state election laws will be necessary. Opponents say this would “hide party information” from the public and “robs” South Dakotans of their right to know who they are voting for. This I believe is the most absurd comment of all. They should have said this measure forces voters to actually read about their candidates and where they stand on the issues rather than play into the political machine that continues to allow those with the most influence to win.

• Initiated Measure 21 would set a maximum finance charge for certain licensed money lenders by prohibiting state-licensed businesses from making a loan that imposes total interest, fees and charges at an APR greater than 36 percent. The measure also prohibits these lenders from evading this rate limitation by indirect means and voids any loan that is provided in violation of this measure. A vote “Yes” is for prohibiting certain money lenders from charging more than 36 percent to help put an end to certain lenders having the right to charge up to 574 percent or more in interest — which in my opinion is downright fraud geared toward low-income families.

• Initiated Measure 22 — known as the Anti-Corruption Act — would extensively revise state campaign finance and lobbying laws and create a publically funded campaign finance program that represents each individual voter rather than the interests of those who donate the most money to any given issue. It would also require additional disclosures and increased reporting, as wells as lowers the amount of contributions PACs can make on behalf of political parties and candidates who are running for state, legislative and county offices. This measure would eliminate the fact that South Dakota is the only state in the union that doesn’t put a cap on political contributions and increases transparency requirements for candidates to ensure fair elections. The measure would also require that an ethics commission be responsible for overseeing a public financing system for elections. If approved, Initiated Measure 22 would allow each registered voter to receive two $50 “Democracy Credits” to assign to the candidate or candidates of their choice, as long as all of them agree not to take donations larger than $250 for the legislature or $500 for statewide office.

• Initiated Measure 23 gives corporate and nonprofit organizations the right to charge a fee for any service provided. This measure has created quite a division among voters because most report they are not sure how this could impact labor unions. Those in opposition say the measure is designed to take people who have chosen not to belong to unions and “force” them to pay fees to those unions. Those in favor say this measure will stop government interference into relationships between employers and workers to prevent “free-riders” from getting benefits other individuals are paying for without contributing their fair share.

• Referred Law 19 was drafted by Republicans and revises the timing and method for submitting election petitions as well as change certain elected laws and prohibits a person registered with a recognized political party from signing an independent candidates nominating petition. It also states that independent candidate for governor cannot appear on the ballot if the corresponding lieutenant governor candidate withdraws and a replacement is not certified by the second Tuesday in August. This referred law that argues it will create fair and honest elections, increased transparency, and prevents abuse of the election process, also restricts the circumstances under which a political party may replace a candidate who has withdrawn from consideration after the primary election. Those against, mostly democrats, say this is an attack on democracy because it was written by longstanding incumbent legislators who “hijacked a petition reform law and turned it into this pile of new regulations to help themselves cling to power and discourage us citizens from participating in elections.”

• Referred Law 20 is an act lowering the State minimum wage for non-tipped employees under age 18 and is on the ballot as a result of those opposed to SB177 passed by the Republican-dominated House and Senate this past session. To learn more about this measure, click here. But before you make up your mind, remember that state voters passed Initiated Measure 18 three years ago to raise the state minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour. While other states in the union are voting on increasing minimum wage even further, South Dakota is the only state preparing to vote on lowering it again to $7.50 an hour — but only workers under age 18 who are mostly likely working to support their family or to save for college. Democrats argue that Referred Law 20 economically discriminates against younger workers by allowing employers to pay them less based on nothing but their age. Those in favor — state chambers of commerce and the Republican leaders in the state legislature — explain their reasons here. In the end it all comes down to this statement I read that says, “…”state law requires employers to pay all non-tipped employees a minimum wage, with limited exceptions. Currently, that amount is $8.55 per hour. State law also requires that the minimum wage be adjusted, effective on January 1 of each year, by any increase in the cost of living as measured by the U. S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index. Referred Law 20, if approved, would lower the existing state minimum wage to $7.50 per … (and require that) no annual cost-of-living wage adjustment would be required for the youth minimum wage. Another aspect of this referred law would prohibit employers from taking any action to displace an employee or reduce an employee’s hours, wages, or benefits, in order to hire someone at the youth minimum wage.