Cory goes to great lengths to argue that criticism of IM22, even on constitutional grounds, is disrespecting voters and democracy. The same electorate voted in Marsy's law. Heidelberger is not bashful in criticizing the voters approval of Marsy's law:
I can thus see why the courts are being cautious… and why Amendment S is now forcing South Dakotans who are innocent until proven guilty to languish longer in jail.
Jason Glodt is having to do a lot of explaining of what his constitutional language means. Maybe Jason Glodt should have taken the time to write that meaning into the actual language of Amendment S.
Maybe the supporters of IM22 should have done the same. Even Cory admitted that the Democrat's online fundraising may now be illegal. So why is Cory saying IM22 needs to stay because of the will of the voters, but Marsy's law does not? Cory does not use logical arguments. He twists things until he puts himself into a partisan political pretzel.
I believe the passage of both of these issues is evidence of a dysfunctional democracy caused by a lack of education that allows so many people to be deceived. That would fit the definition of a corrupted democracy. It is ironic that corruption was used to pass what was supposed to be anti-corruption.