‘Food tax’ measure on November ballot

As South Dakota voters cast their ballots in this year’s general election, they will be tasked with understanding several ballot questions on topics ranging from abortion rights to landowner rights and from marijuana to Medicaid. Here’s the rundown on all the initiated measures and referred law set to appear on the ballot.
Initiated Measure 28 to prohibit taxes on
anything sold for
“human consumption”
Initiated Measure 28 would prohibit the collection of sales or use tax on anything sold for human consumption. “Human consumption” is not defined by state law, and currently the state collects tax on food and drinks, and many municipalities including Custer also collect these taxes. South Dakota and Mississippi are the only states to collect taxes on groceries at the full allowbale rate.
“The measure does not prohibit the collection of sales or use tax on alcoholic beverages or prepared food. Prepared food is defined by law to include food that is sold heated or with utensils.
“The measure may affect the state’s obligations under the tobacco master settlement agreement and the streamlined sales tax agreement. The master settlement agreement resulted from multi-state lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for the public health effects of smoking. South Dakota’s annual share of the master settlement agreement is approximately $20 million. The streamlined sales tax agreement is a multi-state program designed to simplify the collection of sales and use tax for companies selling in multiple jurisdictions.
“Judicial or legislative clarification of the measure will be necessary,” reads the official explanation of the initiated measure.
Proponents of IM 28 say it has broad support, citing a poll by South Dakota News Watch that found 66 percent of South Dakotans support repealing the state’s grocery tax.
One in six children in South Dakota, as well as many adults totalling 106,000 in the state, are food insecure, they say. They argue that by voting for the ammendment, South Dakotans, especially low-income South Dakotans will feel less of a burden at the checkout aisle.
“Because families with very modest incomes must spend up to 30 percent of their total household income on food, whereas more affluent families need spend only 7 percent of theirs, this means that ordinary families are spending 400 percent more of their total income on food than are the wealthy. That is not fair,” said Rick Weiland, co-founder, Dakotans for Health.
Opponents of the measure say that its passage would have too many harmful consequences—eliminating taxes on tobacco, vaping products, CBD, aspirin, toilet paper and other products due to a potentially-broad iterpretation of “human consumption.”
They say this would lead to “significant cuts to essential government functions or new tax increases,” said Nathan Sanderson, executive director, SD Retailers Association; president, Coalition for Responsible Taxation; treasurer, South Dakota Against a State Income Tax.
“IM-28 would prevent cities and towns from collecting sales taxes on consumable items, leaving a huge hole in local budgets...IM-28 will cut at least $176 million each year and lead to significant cuts to education, healthcare, and state employees; or it sets us up for an income tax to fund needed services,” said Sanderson.
The City of Custer also recently passed a resolution ackowledging IM 28’s potential negative impacts to its municipal budget.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the initiated measure. Vote “No” to leave South Dakota law as it is.
Initiated Measure 29 to legalize the recreational use, possession and
distribution of marijuana
If passed, this initiated measure would allow individuals 21 or older to possess, grow, ingest and distribute marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. It would allow individuals to possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijauna products. Possession of marijuana plants, six per individual or 12 per household, would also be legalized.
IM 29 restricts where individuals may possess or consume marijuana, such as schools or where tobacco is prohibited, and allows employers to restrict an employee’s use of marijuana. Property owners may also regulate the use of marijuana on their property.
The measure does not affect state laws dealing with hemp. It also does not change laws regarding medical marijuana.
Possession, ingestion and distribution by individuals younger than 21 and driving under the influence of marijuana would remain illegal.
Proponents say passage of the measure would improve public health and safety because “law enforecement would be able to focus on fighting real crime in our communities,” said Matthew Schweich and Quincy Hanzen with South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws. They also say it would replace the illicit market with licensed businesses selling products that must be tested for safety.
They say it would also stengthen the economy and generate new tax revenues by creating jobs, like farmers, for South Dakotans while also reducing spending on incarceration.
They say studies in Colorado and Washington have shown teen use has not increased in those states since legalization in 2012, and that analysis from states that have legalized cannabis has found that the policy does not increase crime rates.
Those opposing the measure argue the opposite effects. They say legalization increases crime rate and that many arrested for a crime test positive for marijuana.
Opponents also say it would harm children by leading them to believe it is safe. Furthermore, they argue marijuana is a gateway drug to other harmful and illicit drugs.
It would also come at in increased cost to communities through increases in emergency room visits, crime, accidents, mental health effects, and insurance rate increases. Marijuana leads to increased mental and physical health problems they say.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the initiated measure. Vote “No” to leave South Dakota law as it is.
Referred Law 21 to
provide new statutory requirements for
regulating linear
 transmission facilities, to allow counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies,
and to establish a landowner bill of rights
“The Act authorizes counties to impose, for any tax year in which the pipeline operator receives a tax credit, a $1.00 per foot surcharge on carbon dioxide pipelines. Revenue from the surcharge must be distributed as tax relief to each property owner in the county where the pipeline is installed. Any remaining revenue can be allocated at each county’s discretion. No other fee may be imposed except property taxes, or fees associated with road agreements.
“The Act also imposes certain requirements on carbon dioxide pipelines: pipelines must be installed to a minimum depth; each pipeline operator is responsible for damages to drain tile, and to the surface owner, caused by the pipeline; each operator is also responsible for leaks or failures of the pipeline; and any land agent acting on behalf of the pipeline must be a pipeline employee, State resident, or State licensed real estate agent. The Act also includes requirements that carbon pipeline easements be in writing, and only enforceable for a specified period of time; pipeline operators must initiate business operations within five years of the easement; and each easement is void after five years of nonuse,” reads the Attorney General’s explanation.
Proponents of the act say it will protect landowners, hold pipelines, accountable, deliver property tax relief, support our agriculture economy, and keep taxes low for all South Dakotans.
“These are common sense laws that make our agricultural heritage more secure. Our state’s ethanol industry needs carbon pipelines to access new markets and enable the production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel that will add more value to the corn we grow,” said Walt Bones, farmer and impacted landowner, Parker, South Dakota.
Opponents of the act argue that its passage would play into the hands of pipeline companies and their foreign investors at South Dakotans’ expense, and that the name “Landowner Bill of Rights” is misleading. They say provisions outlined in the act would fall short of actually protecting or benefiting South Dakotans. Rather, it gives pipeline companies an avenue to bypass taxation and local governance and zoning rules.
“Referred Law 21 was passed to uniquely benefit the carbon pipeline industry. It encompasses three separate subjects in the title and includes subjects not stated in the title. Article III of the South Dakota Constitution forbids special laws and multiple subjects, so a constitutional challenge is likely,” said Jim Eschenbaum, chairman, South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance.
Early and absentee voting in South Dakota began last Friday, and the deadline to register for the election is Oct. 21. Election Day is Nov. 5.