Select a box and SCROLL DOWN
2000 Pros & Cons and Attorney General Explanations
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment A
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine
Title: An amendment to Article VIII of the South Dakota Constitution relating to classification of property for purposes of taxation.
Attorney General Explanation
The Constitution permits the Legislature to classify real property for school taxation purposes, but limits agricultural property to a single class.
Amendment A would permit the Legislature to establish multiple classes of agricultural property for school taxation purposes.
A vote "Yes" will allow multiple classes of agricultural property for school taxation purposes.
A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is.
Pro -- Constitutional Amendment A
Passage of this proposed amendment to our state's constitution would allow agriculture property to be divided by the legislature into more than one class of property for taxation purposes.
Current constitutional language on agriculture property restricts the legislature in trying to bring about fair and equal taxation of agriculture property across the state.
The present constitutional language enacted in 1930, allowed the legislature to constitute agriculture property as a separate class, which they did. On the question of whether the legislature has this authority, the decision in The Great Northern Railway v. Whitfield stated that "The legislature would be justified in classifying four classes or twenty four classes." However, a 1997 supreme court case stated that the 1930 clause in Article VIII § 15 indicating that the legislature may constitute agriculture property as "a separate class" meant that only one class of agriculture property could be created.
Consequently, agriculture property is not being treated the same as other properties as the legislature can only treat it as one class, yet other classes of property may be divided into more than one class.
Passage of this amendment would allow the legislature to treat agriculture property in the same manner as they may treat other property.
Submitted by: Representative Kenneth McNenny, HC 75 Box 692, Sturgis, SD 57785. Rep. McNenny is a rancher from Meade County and represents District 29.
Con -- Constitutional Amendment A
This amendment is very similar to the constitutional amendment F, that was on the 1998 ballot and defeated. Both are in response to the problem created by extremely high priced sales of agricultural properties for reasons that many times are not for agricultural production. Under current laws of assessment, the sales ratio factor used tends to drive the value of ag property (particularly in development areas) extremely higher than what the productive ability of the property is.
I have opposed this particular amendment because for several years I have advocated and pursued a different assessment procedure, using a formula based on its productive ability to determine the property value, and as a member of the 1999 interim tax committee charged with a study of this problem. This committee produced a proposal to assess based on productive ability and with the action of the 2000 legislature (with some amendments) passed this proposal to study the impact of this concept in nine counties this current year, 2000.
We should know within a year if this assessment concept should be pursued further, dropped or made permanent. If made permanent creating more classes of ag property would not be necessary and may only lead to more inequities.
Therefore the proposed amendment is probably premature, should have been held up or once again defeated.
Submitted by: Representative Al Waltman, 12277 376th Ave, Aberdeen, SD 57401. Rep. Waltman represents District 3.
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment B
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine
Title: An Amendment to Article IX of the South Dakota Constitution authorizing local initiatives to provide for the cooperation and organization of local government.
Attorney General Explanation
Amendment B would allow voters of local government units to combine, eliminate or jointly finance local offices, functions, or governmental units by using initiated measures, unless specifically limited by the Legislature. A majority vote in each affected governmental unit would be required.
A vote "Yes" will allow voters to file initiatives which combine, eliminate or jointly finance local offices, functions, or governmental units.
A "No" vote will leave the Constitution as it is.
Pro -- Constitutional Amendment B
Constitutional Amendment B gives power to the people to initiate the streamlining of local government, reduce the cost of local government, improve services to people and possibly reduce taxes. Amendment B allows voters to combine or eliminate offices or functions within a single local government, such as a city or county government or school board, or to combine or eliminate offices and functions from two or more of these separate governmental units, such as combining the offices of city and county treasurer, for example.
Voters would be required to secure signatures of at least 15 percent of those voting in the preceding gubernatorial election in the affected jurisdiction in order to place a proposal for combination or elimination on the ballot in that jurisdiction. The proposal would be adopted if approved at the election by a majority of votes cast in each affected jurisdiction.
Elected officials are sometimes reluctant or opposed to combining or eliminating offices and functions under their control no matter how much the combination or elimination would improve services to people or reduce costs and taxes to taxpayers. If approved, Amendment B will give power directly to the people to improve local government. The peoples' use of this new power under the South Dakota Constitution would streamline government, make government more efficient, improve services and reduce taxes.
Submitted by: Representative Bill Peterson, 3808 E Marson Dr, Sioux Falls, SD 57103. Rep. Peterson represents District 14.
Con -- Constitutional Amendment B
This Amendment may have unintended consequences:
A legal "barn door" has been left open in the wording of this Amendment. If this amendment is passed, the SD Constitution would permit administrative cooperation within or between local government units "either within or without the state." While such governmental cooperation with "bordering" states may or may not be feasible and beneficial, the wording does not limit such governmental unit administrative cooperation to "bordering" states. The wording opens up such administrative cooperation to any governmental unit in the USA, in this hemisphere or, for that matter, in any country in the world.
For example, administrative agreement might be made with another governmental unit to store waste--nuclear or otherwise--somewhere in South Dakota. Another example would be that somewhere in South Dakota agreement might be made to have the same type of gambling that Atlantic City has.
Since this is a Constitutional Amendment, it cannot be changed easily to close the legal "barn door" of "without the state." Twenty seven Representatives and thirteen Senators--both Republican and Democrat--voted against Amendment B. For that matter, the voters turned it down in 1998. The Legislature needs to revisit this issue and tighten up the wording before a similar proposal returns to the ballot.
We don't need new laws and constitutional changes to increase local government cooperation, we need local officials who want to do it. If you want further consolidation, the answer is to elect local officials who agree with you, not amend our state constitution.
Submitted by: Representative Mary
Patterson, 1503 S. Spring Ave., Sioux Falls, SD 57105. Rep. Patterson
represents District 13.
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of
State Joyce Hazeltine Title: An
initiated amendment to Article XI of the South Dakota Constitution, concerning
the taxation of inheritances. Attorney General Explanation The State currently imposes inheritance taxes.
Amendment C would repeal the state tax on any inheritance on the property of
anyone who dies on or after July 1, 2001, and would prohibit the Legislature
from enacting a tax on any inheritance. A vote "Yes" will repeal the state inheritance
tax. A vote "No" would leave the inheritance tax in
place. Pro -- Constitutional
Amendment C VOTE YES TO REPEAL THE DEATH TAX. November 7th you have the
opportunity to repeal one of South Dakota's most regressive and immoral
taxes, the inheritance tax. Known as The Death Tax. South Dakota
has the most brutal inheritance tax in the US. With tax rates as high as
55% of the estate, and with the exemption at only $50,000, you are
guaranteed that at some point in your life you will pay this Death Tax. We've struggled over the last six years
during the legislature to repeal this tax, with no success. We are
guaranteed that if this issue fails to be repealed by the people, there
will be little incentive to change or repeal the Death Tax in the
future. TRUE: We will eliminate an immoral tax
that hits your family at the worst possible time. Imagine you've just
lost a loved one. While you're still dealing with your grief, you
receive notice that you have to pay the Death Tax, and you have only 9
months to pay. You then find out the tax is higher than you ever
thought, that's when you have to sell part or all of the ranch, farm or
the family business, or maybe the home you were born in, just to pay
this horrible tax to the state of South Dakota. FALSE: The repeal would eliminate your
30% property tax reduction, and the state will withhold money from the
schools, because they don't have money to replace the 20 million in lost
Death Tax money. TRUE: Growth in our sales tax will nearly
cover the Death Tax revenue. We can do both, keep the property tax
reduction and repeal the Inheritance Tax. South Dakota's Constitution
mandates schools will be adequately funded. No one can take funding away
from our schools. It's just scare tactics. VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT C. Submitted by: Representative Bill Napoli,
6180 S Hwy 79, Rapid City, SD 57701. Rep. Napoli represents District 35.
Con -- Constitutional
Amendment C
The South Dakota inheritance tax is being
presented as an unfair, grabbing tax that harshly penalizes the deceased
creator of an estate and that prevents hard earned farms and businesses
from being passed on to the next generations. Those claims need
examination. In reality, almost 80% of all estates are
not even subject to this tax. A surviving spouse pays no tax at all.
After the exclusions, a son or daughter would pay a graduated
inheritance tax which would mean that a $500,000 farm or business
property would still amount to a $465,000 gift and would certainly allow
that heritage to be perpetuated. That can scarcely be considered a great
damaging penalty to the heirs. Our inheritance tax has a direct
relationship to the absence of a state income tax. South Dakota has
encouraged the creation of these family estates by not taxing the
profits that made them possible, nor has there been any claim made
against the greatly appreciated capital values that are so typical
within most of these estates. It is not a death tax but is instead a
relatively minor fee against those persons who had little or nothing to
do in building the wealth that is being transferred to them. During the
1990s well over 50% of the state's inheritance tax was paid by cousins
or nephews or other designees who lived outside of our state. If you vote for the rescission of this
inheritance tax you will, after this next year, automatically forfeit,
during all the following years, the last 5% of the property tax relief
which the Governor and the legislature have enacted. Should all home
owners be asked to contribute 5% of their property tax each year as a
hedge against an average 5 1/4% inheritance tax which they will probably
never be called upon to pay? This whole issue has been built on
misguided emotions rather than on the actual financial impact placed
upon the many people of the state. Submitted by: Senator Keith Paisley, 2409
S. Elmwood, Sioux Falls, SD 57105. Senator Paisley represents District
12 and is chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee.
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of
State Joyce Hazeltine Title: An
initiated Amendment to Article III, Section 25 of the South Dakota Constitution
repealing the video lottery. Attorney General Explanation The Constitution authorizes legislative enactment
of video lottery. Amendment D removes that authority and will repeal all video
lottery laws. A vote "Yes" will abolish video lottery. A vote "No" will leave the video lottery in
place. Pro -- Constitutional
Amendment D When you and I vote on Amendment D, we’ll
shape the lives of thousands of South Dakotans. People like Bill O’Hara
of Watertown, a solid citizen who ran a medical clinic. But one big win
on video lottery and he was hooked. Now, his wife and four children
await his prison sentencing for embezzling $670,000 to feed his
addiction. Or consider Carol Johnson of Aberdeen.
She bought school supplies and clothes for a heartbroken neighbor girl
whose dad was broke from video lottery. But she never dreamed that two
years later it would be her husband’s addiction and her kids’ turn to suffer. After four nightmarish years, she recently drove
her kids through Aberdeen – at their request – to count the
"casinos" where Dad lost all their money. Multiply Bill or Karen’s story by 14,000
South Dakota addicts and you understand why top state leaders call video
lottery "the worst mistake South Dakota ever made." But it doesn’t have
to be. In 1994, when courts stopped the machines for three months,
gambling addiction inquiries fell 97 percent, according to the USD
Journal of Medicine, with "little evidence" that addicts tried other
forms of gambling. But when voters narrowly decided to
restart the machines, the social devastation began anew. Yes, we can talk statistics all day – the
fact that 94 percent of losses come from addicts, the $1.6 billion lost
in the machines, the 6,000 crimes and $260 million in social costs – but
it all comes down to people’s lives. For 100 years, our state did fine without
video "casinos" on every corner. And as a state, we could stand tall
knowing we weren’t trying to fund government off our citizens’
weaknesses. You and I can correct South Dakota’s
biggest mistake by voting YES on Amendment D – to stop video lottery. Submitted by: John H. Paulton, 3500 S
First Ave, Suite 210, Sioux Falls, SD 57105. Mr. Paulton is chairman of
Yes on D! Stop Video Lottery.
Con -- Constitutional
Amendment D
Amendment D seeks to eliminate an entire
industry by banning video lottery in South Dakota. This is the third
time in eight years that video lottery has been on the ballot. The video
lottery industry is a $221 million business that operates in 1600
locations and provides a $25 million payroll to a total of 4000
employees. In addition, video lottery generates $95 million in revenue
to the state that is deposited in the Property Tax Reduction Fund and is
distributed back to communities through the state aid to education
formula. The loss of a $221 million industry,
along with thousands of jobs would be a big blow to the economy of this
state. Imagine what will happen if the state loses $95 million in tax
revenue. The replacement of that significant amount of money would
require either a personal and business income tax, elimination of the
30% tax reduction implemented by Governor Janklow and the legislature,
or a significant increase in sales and use taxes. The only other
reasonable option to offset the loss of 95 million dollars would require
a dramatic reduction in state programs and services and some combination
of increased taxes. Bankruptcies, divorces, and suicides are
at their lowest point in three years. This evidence proves that video
lottery does not have the social impact that opponents suggest. Video
lottery is a voluntary tax paid by adults who play the machines
for entertainment. Unfortunately, 1.63% of people who play develop a
gambling problem, but should the other 98.37% of video lottery players
and 100% of non-players be expected to pay higher taxes as a result? Government should not be forced into
putting the privileges of a free society out of the reach of responsible
adult taxpayers. Vote NO on amendment D. Submitted by: Larry Mann, 520 44th St, Rapid City, SD 57702. Mr. Mann is the campaign manager for Taxpayers
Voting No on Amendment D.
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of
State Joyce Hazeltine Title: An
Amendment to Article VIII of the South Dakota Constitution, permitting the
investment of permanent school funds in certain stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and
other financial instruments and to use a certain portion of the interest and
income to increase the principal in the fund. Attorney General Explanation The South Dakota Investment Council invests the
state permanent school fund, and other educational and charitable funds. Losses
resulting from these investments must be reimbursed by the Legislature. The
Investment Council is prohibited from investing these funds in stocks or similar
investments. In addition to the investments currently
authorized, Amendment E would allow the Investment Council to invest these funds
into stocks and similar investments. Amendment E would limit reimbursement to
losses incurred through any unconstitutional act. In addition, all interest and income earned from
the investment of the state permanent school fund is currently required to be
annually disbursed to the public school districts. Under Amendment E, only
interest and income earned in excess of the inflation rate would be disbursed to
the school districts. The remaining interest and income would become part of the
permanent school fund. A vote "Yes" will change the Constitution. A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is. Pro -- Constitutional
Amendment E The 2000 Legislature
passed a joint resolution placing Amendment E on the ballot. If this
amendment is passed it would change the policy under which the $130
million permanent School and Public Land money would be invested.
Presently the money can only be invested in bonds. When this amendment
is passed the policy would change so the money could be invested in
"stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments as
provided by law" by the South Dakota Investment Council. Any loss
occurring through an unconstitutional act shall be made good through a
special appropriation. The Amendment would allow more investment
flexibility to maintain the fund at the rate of inflation and to
generate higher future income. The members of the South Dakota
Investment Council are professionals responsible for investing over $6
billion of state funds, primarily South Dakotan's retirement funds. The
commissioner of School and Public Lands is a member of the council. The
Council has an exceptional investment record over the past twenty-five
years. Amendment E would maintain the purchasing
power of the school funds for education for future generations of school
children. This would be done with the professional management and
diversification of the funds. A yes vote would allow the school funds to
be invested similarly to the state retirement systems. Amendment E means preservation for the
future of our school funding. Vote "Yes". Submitted by: Senator Arlene Ham, 1116
Crestridge Court, Rapid City, SD 57701. Senator Ham represents District
32.
Con -- Constitutional
Amendment E
You, the voters of South Dakota are being
asked again if you want to have the permanent education funds placed in
higher risk investments. You voted down the same proposal in 1994, again
in 1996, and again in 1998. Now in 2000 you are being asked another
time. Do you want to allow the state to invest the permanent school fund
dollars in high-risk stocks, bonds, mutual funds or other investments?
These types of investments have a greater potential for a higher yield
return. This is the attractive side of the issue. The down side of the
issue out weighs the proposal. The bottom line: Are you willing to risk the permanent
education funds? Amendment E will allow these funds to be
placed in a higher risk investment, with no way to reverse the measure
in time to save the funds if the market turns to a large loss cycle. I
have always been told never invest more than you can afford to lose. Can
we afford to lose our permanent education fund? We must face reality
that this type of return on high-risk funds will not and can not always
be there. With even the slimmest possibility of these funds being lost,
ask yourself, who will be the real loser? The real losers are the
children of this state. The investing of our children's permanent school
fund is no different than gambling. Would you favor taking these
permanent school funds and going to one of the casinos, with the idea to
try to increase the amount of funds for the education of our children? I
think the voters know the right answer to that question. I feel that I
have been elected to the position of House of Representatives to safe
guard your money. AND, I stress, it is your money. Submitted by: Representative Ted Klaudt,
HC 11 Box 804, Walker, SD 57659. Rep. Klaudt represents District 28.
Compiled by the Office of Secretary of
State Joyce Hazeltine Title: An
initiated amendment to SDCL 42-7B-14 to raise the maximum bet limits for limited
card games and slot machines authorized within the city of Deadwood. Attorney General Explanation State law currently imposes a maximum limit of
five dollars on any initial or subsequent bet for Deadwood gaming. Initiated
Measure 1 would increase the bet limit to one hundred dollars on each of these
bets. A vote "Yes" will increase the bet limits to
$100. A vote "No" will leave the bet limits at $5. Pro -- Initiated
Measure 1 Since it's inception, the Deadwood
Gaming/Historic Preservation Project has relied on a maximum bet limit
of $5 on all games being played in Deadwood. A YES vote on this
initiative will give Deadwood the ability to compete with other states
and gaming jurisdictions that enjoy substantially higher maximum bet
limits. Since legalized gaming returned to
Deadwood in 1989, that industry has created over 2,000 direct-employment
jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. In addition, millions of dollars
from taxes and from private investors have been spent to restore and
preserve public and private properties in the City of Deadwood. Deadwood
has been directly responsible for increasing the annual visitation to
the state. Based on Department of Tourism statistics, that increase in
visitation represents millions of additional dollars spent all across
South Dakota. As a National Historic Landmark City,
Deadwood's preservation efforts have been second to none in the United
States. Deadwood's industry has also funded over $1 million in
worthwhile historic preservation projects in every corner of South
Dakota. Realizing that this kind of industry is not without negatives,
Deadwood has stepped forward to help fund programs to deal with these
problems. Over the past decade, Deadwood has
watched it's market share diminish as more and more gaming saturates our
travel corridors. Initiative #1 simply allows Deadwood to market and
compete for customers not currently coming to South Dakota for
recreation gaming. Deadwood does not view this as an expansion of
gambling, but simply a change in South Dakota law. If implemented, the
new tax formula already in place for Deadwood will allow over 70 percent
of those monies to be spent on worthwhile projects like education and
additional historic preservation all across South Dakota. Deadwood will receive only ten percent of
any new tax money generated by an increase in the maximum bet limit. Submitted by: Tom Blair, 4 Ryan Rd,
Deadwood, SD 57732 and Tom Nelson, 616 Sunnyhill Rd, Lead, SD 57754.
Con -- Initiated Measure 1
The Stakes are Too High Vote No on Increased Bet
Limits Increasing the bet limit
from five dollars to one hundred dollars means a sweeping change in
gambling across the entire state. Higher stakes would apply to the nine
reservation casinos as well as Deadwood. The twenty-fold increase is
intended to create a competitive gambling industry. This violates the
original intention of voters, who approved Deadwood gambling only for
historic preservation and as a low-stakes addition to tourism. Right now the Black Hills area is not
just for out-of-state visitors but is also South Dakota's own affordable
summer and winter vacation spot. Higher bet limits are a significant
first step toward dramatically changing the character of the Hills.
Higher stakes will attract high-dollar investors who want to "develop"
the area with costly resorts and turn it into a playground for the rich.
Property values and taxes, already increasing rapidly, will go even
higher. At the same time, the Black Hills economy will depend even more
on low-paying service jobs. The combination will turn the Hills into a
high-end resort area where ordinary people can't afford either to live
or to visit. A higher bet limit in Deadwood and at the
reservation casinos will put high-stakes gambling within easy reach of
everyone in South Dakota. Enabling gamblers to lose their money twenty
times faster will only accelerate the problems that gambling has already
brought us: increased financial and family stress, crime, and social
service needs. Even more money will be spent on gambling instead of in
local businesses that provide necessities for families. What's at stake here is not just the
amount that can be risked on the turn of a card, but the character of
our state. Vote to keep bet limits at five dollars. Vote "No" on
Initiated Measure One. Submitted by: Kathleen Christopherson, PO
Box 7822, Rapid City, SD 57709. Ms. Christopherson is a member of No On
Higher Stakes.
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment C
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment D
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment E
2000 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Initiated Measure 1