This vote is going to come down to public health versus Private property owners rights.

I am going to throw a scenario out there.

If I normally smoke in my garage (private property), which would be legal; and a neighbor comes over and purchases a dozen eggs from me, the transaction takes place in the garage, does that mean I can no longer smoke in my garage, or my yard?

If, at the time you signed your lease for a commercial property, you were concerned about a potential future tenant that engaged in a legal activity your were personally opposed to, I’d say you should have made your objection before you signed the lease.

The business in question has now been in business for a few years now, yes? If it bothers you as much as you protest it does, why are you still there?

H.B. 1240 bans smoking statewide in all enclosed workplaces in South Dakota, including bars and restaurants,[260] exempting only private residences unless used for child daycare,[260] cigar bars, retail tobacco shops, and a percentage of hotel and motel rooms.

You’re also ignoring the aspect of my hypothetical PRIVATE CLUB that chooses to cater to smokers.

FWIW, if a Doctor chose to let patients smoke in their waiting room, I would support that as it’s their choice. I cherish my Mayo Clinic ashtray =|;)

This is vastly different than drunken driving, in as much as a personal DESIRE is trumping the property rights of a business owner, where patronage is an OPTION that can either be accepted or not.

The proposed ban even extends its prohibition on PRIVATE CLUBS that are NOT open to the public, which really illustrates that its proponents are not interested protecting the “public” but moving the bar to an outright prohibition of smoking in all circumstances.

If I’m not mistaken, a business owner still retains the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as their refusal is not based upon discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Using a business model that is “smoker friendly” should certainly remain the right of the owner and especially in the case where a business is explicitly NOT open to the public at large.

And how can it be fair or meaningful if pretty much the entire electorate only knows what they get from commercial media…TV and talk shows etc?

How many voters on “smoking” know, or care, that a typical cigarette may not contain a shred of tobacco, and that public officials (even the ones on the Ban Wagon) have for decades permitted unwitting smokers to be poisoned (and killed) by many pesticide residues, dioxin from chlorine cig adulterants, with cancer-causing radiation from certain still “legal” fertilizers, and with kid-attracting additives, addiction-enhancing additives AND fire-causing additives?

To call smoke from that “tobacco smoke” is a stretch. A lie, in fact. A deceitful cig industry marketing term, at best. Perjury—if done under oath.

Can we get voters to vote about that being ok or not?…or about if the perpetrators ought be allowed to blame the victims for “smoking”, to evade liabilities, and to blame innocent parties like bar and bowling alley proprietors?

Look up “Fauxbacco” and “Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion”.

Once one knows WHAT is being smoked, perhaps then we can have a vote. Otherwise we have an assault on democracy itself…as if voting for or against smelly shoes, or for or against a neighboring town’s football team.
We do not have, nor want, absolute democracy.

How about a vote on this?—
Shall We Allow Public Officials To Use Their Office to Help the Cigarette Cartel Evade Liabilities and Prosecution for Reckless and Deadly Contamination of Smoking Products?”

Thanks Bill. I just hope that that Notary properly acknlowedged my Bucket List.

The issue was about the signatories being registered voters but that they were discarded because of a mistake of the notary. Duplicates and non-registered voters were appropriately already disregarded.

Toad,

The Secretary of the State is to interpret the law to the letter. Courts are the arbiters of intent weighing multiple laws, precedent, etc..

Bill,

Not always. By law, many things are required to be notarized as acceptable witness.

Hmmm.

Since that rule doesn’t apply to petitions, why do we bother to apply it to elections? Mr. Jones? You seem to be the sanest of these young people, perhaps you can explain this reasoning.

What’s wrong with the letter of law? What’s wrong with words having plain meaning? Humpty Dumpty was a lawyer:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

And I also agree that Chris Nelson has done a great job as SoS. He has always put his job first, no matter what his personal views are on any issue.

Basically you are saying Nelson doesn’t interpret the law very well. Right?

I’m just saying… A low budget campaign showing the ability to stand up to his party base seems to be a familiar theme with politicians.

I like him and Curd both. I don’t get to gung ho fired up over either. But hopefully that is just me.

There is room in the race for more candidates!

There was much concern in many quarters that requiring absolutely strict compliance on the notarization issue could open up personal business and corporate transactions to review on the same basis. That is the point I was making and why I think going to the Supreme Court will not rule in favor of throwing out these signatures. Both in law and practice, technical notarization issues have not voided the underlying item being notarized.

But, if they want to appeal, I respect their right to pursue it. I do agree however the resources might be better spent fighting the issue out with the voters.

“Believe it or not, ‘red herring’ has as much to do with hunting dogs as with brightly colored fish. Here’s how: A herring is a soft-finned bony fish. People who like to eat herring have long preserved them by salting and slow smoking them. That process makes a herring turn red or dark brown — and gives them a very strong smell. Dogs love to sniff such smelly treats, a fact that makes the fish a perfect diversion for anyone trying to distract hunting dogs from the trail of their quarry. The practice of using preserved fish to confuse hunting dogs led to the use of the term ‘red herring’ for anything that diverts attention from the issue at hand.”

(Your house buying analogy, by the way, doesn’t have very much to do with the issue at hand. Nothing is being bought or sold here, so the equivalency of the consequences — which appears to be your whole point — just isn’t there. I’d call your argument a red herring, but I’m not sure what a red herring really is… Besides, I like herring.)

Myself, I think an appeal is a lost cause. To require absolute conformity to the letter of the law by notaries has broad implications.

You sell your house, the notary makes a technical mistake, and the new owner burns down the house, you get a burnt house back and have to give the money back.

You buy a house, the notary makes a mistake, the house appreciates greatly, the former owner can come back and get the house at the old price and make the profit.

Notaries are essentially formalized witnesses. The main purpose of notarization is to verify that the person signing the document was that person. Unless the losers in court have evidence that people signing were not that person, the court will rule that the signature or commercial transaction is valid.

I’m conservative but his obligation to enforce the law as he understands it was the oath he took.

These two idiotic moves haven’t helped Nelson with the conservatives in his party. Although since Curd was one of the sponsers of the smoking ban, this doesn’t leave those of us who want smaller government much choice, does it?

I say he wants more press so he challenges it!

The ACS and AHA believe they have the support in South Dakota. I guess we are going to find out for sure one way or another