SD Constitutional Amendment I - Forty legislative days maximum

Constitutional Amendment I

Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution, to provide for a maximum of forty legislative days each year.

Attorney General Explanation
The Constitution limits the length of regular legislative sessions held during odd-numbered years to no more than forty
legislative days, and those held during even-numbered years to no more than thirty-five legislative days.
Constitutional Amendment I would set all regular legislative sessions at a maximum of forty legislative days.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.


Pro -- Constitutional Amendment I

“Under God the People Rule” is the state motto of South
Dakota, and this principle is expressed in the Legislative
Article of our Constitution. This Article establishes a citizen
Legislature and makes the Legislature part-time, limits terms
of office to two years and allows for initiative and
referendum.

To protect the people’s right to rule, the Legislature must be
closely tied to the people. The people expect the Legislature
will have the time and expertise to make sound policy for
South Dakota and to watch over the actions of the Executive
Branch.

The Legislative Article is nearly unchanged since statehood;
however, the world has become more complex, making the
creation of sound laws more difficult. In 1972, South
Dakotans voted to revise and dramatically strengthen the
Executive Branch. This made the Executive very powerful in
relation to the Legislature because the Governor is full-time
and the Legislature is part-time, creating an imbalance
between the branches that has grown over the last 35 years.

Amendment I would make a small but important change to
the Legislature and help it fulfill its responsibilities and
redress the imbalance between branches. It allows the
Legislature to meet annually in a session not exceeding 40
days. (Currently, the Legislature meets 40 days in odd
number years and 35 days in even number years and, other
than tradition, there is no reason why one session is five days
shorter than the other.) The additional five days every two
years would be optional for the Legislature to use. Given the
complexities of the world and the reality of our strong
Executive, the Legislature could very well decide that it
needed these extra days.

It is in our interest as citizens to give our Legislature this
modest flexibility to ensure that “Under God the People
Rule.”

Submitted by: Bill Peterson, Majority Leader, South Dakota
House of Representatives, 2001 – 2004, 3808 E. Marson Dr.,
Sioux Falls, SD 57103


Con -- Constitutional Amendment I

Until 1964 the legislature met every other year, and then a 30
day off-year session was created just to address that year’s
budget. Those sessions have now morphed into two full
legislative sessions where more laws are proposed and
enacted. This Constitutional Amendment proposes to increase
the session length; an idea the voters have rejected in the past.
Constitutional Amendment I is an expansion of government
and I urge you to vote no for the following reasons.

In the past the legislature has finished its work and gone
home early on a number of occasions; the old days of
“covering the clock” have become rare. But know this, if you
give the legislature more time to decide issues, the most
important issues will just be pushed off to the new last day of
the longer session.

Additionally there is cost to the taxpayer for the added five
days. Each legislator will draw an additional five hundred
fifty dollars in per diem, there will be additional travel costs,
and staff expenses for the extra week will have to be paid.
The additional costs will be at least $115,000. This does not
include the costs to various groups, including cities, counties,
and schools in our state, that will be paying lobbyists to be in
Pierre, for an additional week, defending these groups from
proposed legislation.

Last, but not least, is the old adage, “if it isn’t broke don’t fix
it.” Presently the legislative sessions of forty days and thirty-
five days are more than adequate for your legislators to do the
people’s work. It is already too long and many people,
willing to serve, cannot afford to take a leave of absence from
their job to serve in the legislature.

Once again, I urge you to vote no on Constitutional
Amendment I.

Submitted by: Senator Jerry Apa, Chair, Senate
Appropriations Committee, 137 Grand Ave, Lead, SD 57754

Looking at the pro and con of this issue one wonders what is all the fuss about 5 days.

How much more can be done in five days?

Evidently we the people still have control and for the legislature to expand they need the approval of the people.

I think the "con" view is winning me over on this one.

There may be some benefits of it passing, but it would cost the State more money and is not absolutely necessary.

I think I'll vote No.