New editions of the State Legislative Tracker and The Policy Tracker available now!

South Dakota Securities Practices and Transactions, Initiative 9 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Business Regulation
Business regulation.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
South Dakota Constitution
Seal of South Dakota.jpg

The South Dakota Securities Practices and Transactions Initiative, also known as Initiative 9, was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in South Dakota as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. The measure would have prohibited short sale of stock and limited the amount of time to deliver sold securities to three business days.[1][2]

Election results

See also 2008 ballot measure election results

South Dakota Initiative 9 (2008)
Defeatedd No191,59656.61%
Yes 146,872 43.39%

Election results via: South Dakota Political Almanac, South Dakota Constitutional Amendments, Initiatives and Referendums 1970-2010

Text of measure

The text of the measure can be read here.


Article 4 of South Dakota's Uniform Securities Act of 2002 concerns the state registration requirements and exemptions from them for broker-dealers, agents, investment advisors, investment advisor representatives, and federal covered investment advisors.[3]

This initiative aimed to amend two specific subsections to make broker-dealers, agents, investment advisors, investment advisor representatives, and federal covered investment advisors liable for up to $10,000 in damages for each violation for commercially unreasonable delay in delivery of securities that they have sold; commercially unreasonable delay being defined for the purpose of this law as more than 3 business days.[4] The purpose of this is to prohibit short-selling of securities.


Measure 9 was authored by former South Dakota Attorney General Mark Meierhenry.

This initiative was supported by South Dakotans for Securities Reform, chaired by State Representative Hal Wick (R-12).

"South Dakotans for Securities Reform consists of stockholders and concerned citizens who want to help protect South Dakota companies, stockholders and taxpayers from the harms of stock manipulation through naked short selling and failure-to-delivers."[5]

Arguments For

Mark V. Meierhenry of Danforth & Meierhenry and Tim Mooney of Arno Political Consultants wrote the "pro" arguments for the state Ballot Question Pamphlet:

  • Currently, if someone in South Dakota is harmed by short selling, they have to go to the place of the sale to seek restitution. This measure would mean that a lawsuit could be pursued in South Dakota.
  • The measure does not outlaw short selling, it merely enables federal law regarding short sales to be prosecuted in South Dakota.[6][7]


This ballot measure was opposed by Governor Mike Rounds. "In a July letter to the industry association, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said promoters might have good intentions, but the proposed initiative would unduly burden and obstruct interstate commerce."[8]

Travis Larson, spokesman for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, was quoted as saying: "The SEC has been given control of our financial market regulations so that we have one single set of rules and regulations for our financial markets," Larson said. "And if every state were to pass its own rules _ some of which may run counter to the SEC _ the patchwork quilt of resulting rules and regulations would tie up our financial markets and slow them, hurting our competitiveness."[9]

The State Bar Association, South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Directors for the South Dakota retirement system were all opposed to the measure.[10][11]

Arguments Against

Gail Sheppick, Director of the South Dakota Division of Securities wrote the "con" arguments for the state Ballot Question Pamphlet:

  • The measure is too broad, attempting to regulate legal short sales outside of the state.
  • Current federal and South Dakota law already prohibits the abuse of short sales.
  • Brokerage firms might take their business out of the state should this measure pass.[6][12]
  • Initiated Measure 9 aims to prohibit the practice of “short selling” in the financial securities trade. Short sellers “sell high” with the intention of “buying back low.” The Securities and Exchange Commission, which sets rules and regulations for financial markets, has traditionally allowed this type of trading activity. It is not clear that Measure 9 would stand up to legal scrutiny if passed.

See also

Suggest a link

External links

Additional reading


BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires that the text of the measure be added to the page.