ELIMINATE TERM LIMITS?
NO WAY! VOTE NO on "J"
205,074 of South Dakota voters placed term limits in the South Dakota Constitution. Now a few years later, 82 state legislators are trying to eliminate them completely. Not once in the history of the United States have the people proactively voted to eliminate term limits. We must stand together today, taxpaying citizens united, to promote limited, transparent, and responsible government, as well as the continued representation of a citizen legislature.
Ask your Friends and Family this simple question:
DO YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE TERM LIMITS?
When they tell you:
NO WAY!
Tell them they must:
VOTE NO on "J"
Amendment J: Term Limits
KSFY News
click here to get the full KSFY News story
South Dakota, Latest State to Second Guess Term Limits
CNN
In South Dakota, efforts to maintain term limits are being waged with equal passion. Lee Breard, spokesman for Don't Touch Term Limits, the ballot committee opposing the repeal, said he doesn't buy Napoli's claims.
He argues that incoming legislators are educated people who are capable of getting up to speed if they have adequate leadership to help them transition.
"Our country was founded on the principle of a citizen government. We're not meant to have career politicians. You're meant to go into public office, work as hard as you can to create fair laws and then return to public life to live under the laws you created."
Click here to get the full story from CNN.
USA Today Features Measure J and adds a poll on Term Limits. Click on the link below to vote NO on Repealing Term Limits.
Referendum: Should term limits be scalped?
The USA Today
On Deadline is presenting some of the ballot items voters will see when they go to the polls on Election Day.
Today's measure comes to us from South Dakota, where voters are being asked to decide on the future of term limits in the Mount Rushmore State. Right now, state legislators are limited to eight consecutive years in their part of statehouse. This proposal, if approved, would remove that restriction.
NEW NO ON J RADIO AD
The new NO ON J radio ad will be running across South Dakota through Tuesday. Want to hear it? Just click here.
Constitutional Amendment J
Rapid City Journal (Editorial)
This amendment to the Constitution would, if approved, eliminate term limits for legislators. Those in favor of passing this amendment say term limits deny the public the right to choose their own representatives and valuable experience is lost when term limits are in place. They also say term limits increase the power of lobbyists, bureaucrats and the governor’s office.
Those opposed to repealing term limits say this amendment simply goes against the wishes of the state’s voters. The voters were very clear about term limits and put them in place with a sound majority. If the voters were outraged with the fallout of term limits, they would say so.
We respect the will of the voters and therefore don’t support Constitutional Amendment J seeking to eliminate term limits for state legislators.
to view the endorsement on the Rapid City Journal website, please click here.
Opponents of term limit repeal spend $30,000
Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. - Opponents of a ballot measure that would repeal term limits for state lawmakers have spent nearly $30,000 in the last four months, while no one has reported spending any money in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.
The second-largest donation to the campaign committee was $100 from former state Rep. John Timmer, who led the 1992 effort to impose term limits.
The campaign committee spent $29,592, with more than $26,000 of that going to advertising.
Voters in 1992 approved a constitutional amendment that imposed term limits on state lawmakers, members of Congress and state constitutional officers. The 1992 measure was aimed primarily at limiting the length of service in Congress, but federal courts ruled states could not impose term limits on members of Congress.
The constitution currently limits lawmakers to eight consecutive years in a chamber, but term-limited legislators are allowed to run for another chamber. For example, someone can serve eight years in the House and then switch to run for the Senate.
There is no organized group promoting the repeal of term limits, but a few retiring lawmakers have spoken in favor of Constitutional Amendment J.
The Legislature voted to place the proposed repeal of term limits on the ballot for a statewide public vote.
Supporters of the repeal argue that term limits weaken the Legislature, giving more of an advantage to lobbyists, bureaucrats and the governor. They contend that term limits force effective, experienced legislators out of office, to be replaced with inexperienced House and Senate members.
Opponents of the ballot measure argue that term limits should be kept so lawmakers do not become firmly entrenched in office. Term limits bring new people with new ideas into the Legislature, they say.
TERM LIMITS: DAKOTANS' DEMOCRATIC TRADITION
Pierre, SD - Term Limits Guest Opinion Editorial by Lee Breard
Over a century ago, the people of South Dakota inaugurated a democratic tradition that has since taken hold in thirty-one other states.
Direct democracy - or the right of citizens to vote on the laws which they and their leaders must abide by - began in South Dakota over a century ago, and recent studies have shown that states which utilize such direct democratic initiatives and referenda enjoy substantially lower tax rates and less government growth.
The importance of these measures has its roots in our nation's founding.
"With Initiative and Referenda there will be no need for further Constitution Conventions," George Washington once wrote. "People will be able to revise the Constitution when necessary. The basis of our political systems is the right of people to make and alter their Constitutions of government."
In 1992, South Dakotans used this direct democratic method to overwhelmingly approve term limits for legislators.
Yet, ironically, many of these legislators keep insisting that term limits are "undemocratic."
Lawmakers in South Dakota are currently limited to serving no more than eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate, the result of which has been more competitive elections, new ideas, more diversity and better representation in government.
Thanks to these and other positive effects, support for term limits remains as strong today as it ever was.
Back in 1992, two-thirds of South Dakotans voted to approve term limits. Almost precisely the same percentage that voted to uphold them in 2006, when lawmakers inserted a repeal of term limits into a broader ballot initiative known as "Amendment F."
Earlier this year, polling data showed that two-thirds of South Dakotans still support term limits - sixteen years after they were initially passed.
It's obvious by now where the people of South Dakota stand on this issue, but for some reason, politicians in Pierre don't seem to be getting the message.
Fresh from their defeat two years ago, they have placed another repeal of term limits on the November ballot as "Amendment J."
These ongoing efforts by Pierre politicians are part of a larger national trend - one which has seen multiple state legislatures attempt to undo or weaken term limits.
Without question, lawmakers don't want to give up their influence, but referring to one of our nation's founding democratic ideals as "undemocratic" shows just how out of touch they have become.
Citizens want - and expect - decisions to be made based on what's best for them, not what's best for their elected officials. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case with the majority of South Dakota's lawmakers.
In addition to their monolithic opposition to transparency and anti-corruption reforms, this latest attempt to undo term limits shows just how desperate they are to cling to their power.
South Dakotans know this, which is precisely why they passed term limits in the first place, and why they will continue to vote "No" every time lawmakers attempt to repeal them.
The direct democratic tradition that began in this state back in 1898 has come a long way, and this year South Dakotans have multiple opportunities to use this important tool to their advantage.
Voting "Yes on 10," for example, will stop the politicians' pay-to-play mentality and help open up South Dakota government so that all taxpayers can see how their money is being spent - which invariably means that less of it will be spent.
But one vote that should remain firmly in the "No" column is any measure that repeals legislative term limits.
The people have spoken loud and clear on term limits twice before, and will no doubt speak again in the same unambiguous voice on Nov. 4.
Hopefully, at some point their leaders will start listening.
Okerlund: Why term limits? If you have to ask, it's time to go
The Argus Leader
Nonetheless, when they met in Pierre earlier this year, 82 of the 105 members of the South Dakota Legislature dismissed the decisiveness of that 1992 vote and drafted their own constitutional amendment to dump term limits. They have placed their amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot.
To ignore 205,074 fellow South Dakotans takes moxie or - depending on how you look at it - hubris and gall. Some foes of term limits - state legislators like Phyllis Heineman and Gene Abdallah - suggest it takes time for lawmakers to learn the ropes in Pierre and to hone their leadership skills. Just when they get the hang of it, Heineman and Abdallah fret, legislators have to pack their bags.
It is hard to argue against the importance of experience. Unless, of course, one were to point to the U.S. Congress where there are no term limits, where people go and never leave, where there is more white hair than bingo night at the senior center and where just about everything seems to be screwed up.
click here to read the full Argus Leader story
Local Amendment J opponents say term limits ensure fresh voices, less favoritism in Pierre
Rapid City Journal
About 64 percent of South Dakota voters approved a 1992 constitutional amendment implementing term limits for state legislators and constitutional officers.
And support for maintaining the status quo appears strong among Rapid City residents interviewed Wednesday about the Nov. 4 ballot measure that seeks to repeal term limits.
Kirsten Vadnais said the state should "definitely" keep term limits in place and that two or three terms is enough for any elected official.
click here to read the full Rapid City Journal story
South Dakotans support legislators' eight-year cap
Argus Leader
A constitutional amendment to repeal the term limits enacted in 1992 will get hammered at the polls Nov. 4, if South Dakotans vote the way those surveyed told pollsters they would. The term-limit repeal drew support from 30 percent of those asked, while 55 percent said they would vote against it and 15 percent were undecided.
The poll was done by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. The poll of 800 registered voters in South Dakota who said they are likely to vote Nov. 4 has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Polling was done Oct 13-15.
My voice: Term limits will maintain Citizen Legislature
Argus Leader
Seemingly, the legislators who want to repeal term limits are seeking to move toward the development of a professional politician-type Legislature rather than our current citizen-type. This past legislative session, similar to action taken by the U.S. Congress a few years ago, our legislators introduced HB1205 designed to give themselves automatic annual raises without having to vote on a salary bill. Eventually, they said "oops" and killed the bill in committee, recognizing the danger of giving themselves automatic annual raises while they introduced a bill to eliminate term limits.
click here to read the full Argus Leader story
Press Release from No on J.
64% of South Dakota voters supports term limits and polling now shows that a majority of voters will vote NO on Amendment J.
"As national support grows for term limits, South Dakotans are realizing they must again vote this year to keep our cherished term limits in place," said Lee Breard, supporter of NO on J. "Supporters of term limits must vote NO on Amendment J to keep South Dakota's constitutional term limits and citizen legislature in place."
Term limits on ballot
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- South Dakotans are unlikely to reverse the eight-year term limits approved by voters in 1992 for state lawmakers, both supporters and opponents of the Nov. 4 ballot measure say.
click here to read the full Sioux City Journal story
Term limits on ballot
In the pamphlet, Skorupski wrote that term limits have given South Dakota "new faces, fresh thinking in Pierre and more competitive elections in which average citizens and taxpayers have a greater chance of being elected, serving a maximum of four consecutive terms and then leaving office to allow other citizens to serve."
A yes vote says remove term limits of eight consecutive years in either the House of Representatives or Senate. Legislators could run for the same seat as many times as they please.
A no vote says the state got it right in 1992 and leaves the term limits in place.
Click here to read the full Argus Leader story
DON'T TOUCH TERM LIMITS VOTE NO on J Press Releases
"The people of our great state set these limits in the State Constitution by a wide margin in 1992. They had good reasons then and those reasons are still valid today. Nobody wants career politicians like Ted Kennedy in South Dakota." Says Rick Skorupski, Chairman of Don't Touch Term Limits. "What is truly important to understand is that people have to choose NO to maintain our current term limits."
Click here to read the full NO on J Press Release.