Nanny staters are going after ballot referral the hard way.
As opposed to letting it stand or fall on it’s own merits, the nanny staters who took free choice away from business owners have decided to challenge the validity of the referral petitions:
Of about 25,400 signatures reviewed by the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network, nearly 40 percent were found to be invalid, the group contends.
Read it here. KELO land had something to say about it too. Too bad they were wrong:
Thursday was a historic day in South Dakota. For the first time a group is challenging a petition to put an issue on a statewide ballot. Supporters of a statewide smoke free law filed paperwork with the Secretary of State’s office claiming opponents did not collect enough signatures to put a smoking ban on the 2010 ballot.
Read that here. Sorry guys. You’re wrong. It was tried back in the 1980’s. Petition invalidation has been tired before (my dad was hired as the investigative firm to break a ballot initiative petition) and let me tell you this – it is prohibitively expensive to try to prove. It can involve hundreds, if not thousands of hours of independent investigators reviewing each and every petition, and a ton of court time.
Back then, as it was fought out in court, because of the expense, the plaintiffs eventually gave up. (Dad thought they had the petition broken, but he wasn’t paying the bills on it.)
It may be a new thing under the current law. But it certainly was done before.
And as difficult as it sounds, it appears as if the nanny staters are going to try to do it anyway.
My question – if they’re so secure in their position, what are they scared of?
What are they scared of?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I’m so tired that every “rights issue” has to explain that “bad” decisions by individuals are protected by our Constitution (at least for now…).
If we accept the validity of government “sanctioned” healthcare, regardless of whether or not we consider it government controlled, restrictions as to our choice of risk will be enforced, eliminating choices in sports, home and office.
The “risk free life” will become the only “sanctioned choice.
Had to giggle on this…I am usually right with you on most of your commentary….but buddy you are so wrong on this one! I understand your whole point on limited government, however in this case, I personally have paid the price of illness due to smoke filled air. I celebrated the fact we will have clean air. If people want to fill their lungs with toxins, they can in the privacy of their car, their home, but not where others can be harmed! That is the governments role, to protect the citizens. Just as FDA regulates food, consumer safety etc. One would think you are a smoker by the fit you throw over this issue!
The real issue now is wether Larry Mann and the boys broke the law. I watched as petitions were passed around a local wattering hole. The waitresses took turns getting signatures. The same pettion was left at the bar until it was full. Lets just say it wasn’t done legally.
I for one, William, have not accepted the validity of government sanctioned healthcare. Regardless, on this issue, I am opposed to a government enforced smoking ban. That being said, I also like going into a restaurant and not having to smell the smoke some clown is enjoying at my expense. In the past, I simply went somewhere else. Do I like the result? Yes. Do I approve of the method? No. As for the signatures, if a group has a legal right to challenge the signatures, then allow them to do so. If they show that there are many invalid signatures, then I would suspect the petitioners have a reason to be nervous.
Amanda,
If one believes that property rights are critical to civil liberties, one has to be diligent even when the right is not your own. Too often, the debate is solely “how does it affect me” with no consideration of another’s rights.
Personally, I think in general smoking inside without permission of all is inconsiderate. I also think that an exception is where it is known by all that smoking is allowed. When I go into such a place I’m giving permission for them to smoke. If I don’t want to be around inside smoke, I feel it is my obligation to be somewhere else.
“What are they scared of?” Gee, maybe the petition process being abused to delay the enactment of duly passed laws? Bogus signatures and imaginary voters used for political purposes? When ACORN tries stuff like that, conservatives go ape. But when a group you don’t like suggests a group you do like may have engaged in electoral malfeasance, you just poo-poo the accusations. Clever.
John: Ouch. I was just responding to Amanda’s comment about why dugger was so vehement. But, you are correct. I don’t like these distractions that go over stuff that has been discussed. I hate it when that happens.
So Troy do you think there is a chance that enough signatures can be challenged so the law isn’t refered to a public vote? And can Chris Nelso balance his future run for congress with the “needs” of the non smoking wackos?
I am not sure Chris is a winner going after Roger Hunt. Smoking right might be the nail in his political coffin.
John-Lighten up a bit, Troy just countered another post in a very tactful way. Happy 4th all
PP — what are you going to say about your fellow citizens when the smoking ban is the will of the people when they pass this into law?
John,
I think that it is possible that there are insufficient signatures. I also think it is more likely there are sufficient signatures because the Secretary of State uses a statistical sample of 5% of the signatures. I don’t recall my college stats class perfectly but that is a big sample size. Keep in mind that most political polls with a sample size of 1,000 in South Dakota (about .5% of votes cast) has a margin of error of less than 2%. The sample tested by the Secretary of State extrapolates to in excess of a 10% surplus of signatures. My guess is the “odds” of their being insignificant signatures is probably less than 10% (and may be as little as 1% if I remember my stats class as well as I think I do. 
)
Regarding Chris Nelson, I think that the best politics is to do his job with integrity. Chris’ willingness to take so many tough stands without regard to the politics is a testament that he is a very good public servant.
John, our body politic would be better served if every decision wasn’t measured by the political impact and more importantly didn’t call into question the integrity of our public servants, especially when they have a body of work that has been virtually unquestioned by anyone like Chris Nelson.
Anyone in South Dakota who votes against Chris Nelson for either of these decisions, they do so because they’d rather get their way without regard to the legitimacy of the process or the law. I really don’t think that is a big enough number to have any impact on the election (unless of course the margin of victory is less than 100).
Ymous: John was right in “chastising” me. I took it as a tease or a friendly slap in the shoulder. I probably did it to him with the same attitude.
Anon 10:56: The will of the people is not always legal (may violate the Constitution) nor for the common good and sometimes issues need to be revisited (even if it is the will of the people). There is something fundamentally American for continual petitioning of our government to change and improve upon itself.
Bill: Have you been smoking mj with your new best buddy? Everything that is a matter for an election is political. Maybe not partisan but it is political. Health and civil liberties/property rights are the conflicting political issue.
When the SoS checks petitions they only check to see if all the blanks are filled in properly according to law. They don’t check to see if the signers are actually registered voters where they claim to be or have signed multiple petitions. This is what the SD Tobacco Free Kids Network is doing.
Troy your statistical explanation would be valid if the SoS and the SDTFKN were doing the same thing but they are not. No doubt there will be many invalid signatures found, double signings, unregistered voters, fictitious individuals, improper addresses, the list of reasons to invalidate a signature is long and might require litigation.
I have my doubts of success but I’m am ready to pull up a chair, order a beer and popcorn and cheer the ensuing political theater on.
Nick,
You are incorrect. If you were to read the administrative rules (5:02:08:00.01. Requirements for counting signatures on petitions.), the Secretary of State does check to see if the signers are actual registered voters and must properly identify the address and county they are registered and if there are duplicates. Essentially they test for “valid signatures”.
(2) An individual signature on a petition sheet may not be counted if one of the following conditions is present:
(a) It was signed prior to the signing of the candidate’s declaration of candidacy or, if for a ballot question, it was signed before a copy of the text was filed with the secretary of state;
(b) It was signed after the circulator completed the verification;
(c) The residence address does not include a street and house number or a rural route and box number and the town. If the signer is a resident of a second or third class municipality, a post office box number may be used. If the signer does not have a residence address or post office box number, a description of the residence location must be provided. If the signer is a resident of a building with a publicly known name, the building name may be used;
(d) The date of signing, including month and day, is not indicated;
(e) The signer’s name is not printed and legible; or
(f) The signer’s county of voter registration is not provided.
This is the section that counts only the first signature and eliminates duplicates.
5:02:08:00.04. Validity of petition signature when signer has signed more petitions than offices to be nominated. The first signature presented to the filing office which meets the requirements of SDCL 12-6-8 and §§ 5:02:08:00 and 5:02:08:00.01 is valid. The same signature which meets the requirements of SDCL 12-6-8 and §§ 5:02:08:00 and 5:02:08:00.01 on the next nominating petition presented to the filing office may also be valid if the person has not signed petitions exceeding the number of candidates required to be nominated for the same office. Any subsequent signature by such person on a nominating petition presented to the filing office that exceeds the number of candidates required to be nominated for the same office is not valid, except as provided in SDCL 9-13-9.
Troy, last I heard, Bob’s not using the herb these days. Sees mighty prudent of him, all things considered. As for me, I’ve eschewed the “weed of madness” for the last three decades.
It’s because of the snoids.
Next, if the South Dakota GOP wants to embrace second hand smoke as a political issue, more power too them. However It has been my experience that the majority of those I talk to do not.
I think everyone that hates smokers should have a teabag party at either Lake Covell or the Lyon Fairgrounds.
That’ll show ‘em!
Read Mercer’s story today in Aberdeen, Watertown, Mitchell, Pierre or Spearfish papers if you want the numbers and facts about the process.
Troy, if the will of the people isn’t always right, you had better get your folks to stop their discrimination with the gay marriage issue.
Troy, have you ever watched while the SoS checks signatures? I have, several times. Maybe candidate petition signatures are checked using a laxer standard, but they are only checked to insure they have complete addresses in the proper form. No attempt is made to test if a signer is a valid voter. Maybe we are arguing the difference between the letter of the law and actual practice.
One thing that would be hard to nail down, because it would require proving perjury, would be the requirement that the all signatures be witnessed by the person circulating an individual petition. There are reports of many petitions left sitting unattended at bars. A clear violation, but hard to prove.
Amen. What are they scared of? You said it all. They know they’re going down.