One of my readers who was in Pierre during session offered his opinion to me today on why the democrats squawking about it’s passage by Republicans & signing today by Governor Daugaard are way off base:
Democrats have abused the law for years by using placeholders so they can recruit past the deadline. This fixes that.
They have also taken advantage of their horrible gubernatorial campaigns to have a much lower signature requirement than Republicans. This changes so both are based on registered voters – which is the universe of voters who can sign. Daugaard got lots of votes from Democrats and Independents – none of those people can sign a petition for a Republican candidate. Why should R candidates need 2x the signatures that D candidates do, when R’s have 45% of the registered voters and D’s have 35%?
The last change is with independents. This puts them on equal footing with the R’s and D’s – collecting signatures from Independents and requiring the same percentage.
What will the anti-69 campaign say? “Let Dems continue to abuse the placeholder law” or “Save easy petitions for Dems” don’t have a great ring to it.
This all happened because Bernie Hunhoff tried to amend SB 69 to make it EVEN EASIER for Dems to name candidates after the deadline. Listen to the Senate State Affairs hearing – both days – and you will see.
So the righteous indignation wears a little thin.
Food for thought.
I think that this makes a lot of sense. Imagine if a legislator would have had the foresight to make this argument while the bill was being amended or voted on? Then it might have had less complaints along the way.
I’ve been reading the blogs lately and hyperbolic is the word I can best use to describe those who are against the bill. I hear Dakota Free Press spout on and on about how unfair the bill is… I hear sodakliberty continue to espouse the same less than credible info about a law suit (and I don’t think that case has a much to stand on)… (and who cares if a legislative body wants to bring a bill let someone challenge it and if it survives it survives and if it doesn’t it can be fixed later. There are plenty of attorney’s in the legislature who read the bill before they voted on it.)
This bill has now been passed by huge majorities in the House and Senate and signed by the Governor. There is a lot of whining going on among the bloggers who probably don’t have a clue about what they are talking about…
This bill doesn’t look that controversial to me. Here are the yes votes and no votes in the house. It looks like yes votes came from all sides of the GOP spectrum (the only 4 Republicans that I can tell voted against it are Campbell, Kaiser, May and Russell and they vote against everything).
SB 69, House, Conference Committee Report adopted
Anderson Yea, Bartling Nay , Beal Yea,
Bolin Yea , Bordeaux Nay, Brunner Yea,
Campbell Nay, Conzet Yea, Craig Excused,
Cronin Yea , Deutsch Yea, DiSanto Yea,
Dryden Yea, Duvall Yea, Feickert Nay,
Gibson Nay , Gosch Yea, Greenfield (Lana) Yea,
Haggar (Don) Yea, Harrison Yea, Haugaard Yea,
Hawks Nay, Hawley Nay, Heinemann (Leslie) Yea,
Hickey Excused, Holmes Yea, Hunhoff (Jean) Yea,
Hunt Yea, Jensen (Alex) Yea, Johns Yea,
Kaiser Nay, Killer Nay, Kirschman Nay,
Klumb Yea, Langer Yea , Latterell Yea,
Marty Yea, May Nay, McCleerey Nay,
Mickelson Yea, Munsterman Yea, Novstrup (Al) Yea,
Otten (Herman) Yea , Partridge Yea , Peterson (Kent) Yea,
Qualm Yea, Rasmussen Yea, Ring Nay,
Romkema Yea , Rounds Yea , Rozum Yea,
Russell Nay, Schaefer Yea, Schoenbeck Excused,
Schoenfish Nay, Schrempp Excused, Sly Yea,
Soli Nay, Solum Yea , Stalzer Yea,
Stevens Yea, Tulson Yea, Verchio Yea,
Werner Yea, Westra Yea, Wiik Yea,
Willadsen Yea, Wollmann Yea, Zikmund Yea,
Wink Yea
Ayes 50 Nays 16 Excused 4 Absent 0
Schoenfish is also a Republican now.
Nice young man, but he does not know what being a Republican is. I would be curious to see how long he has been a Republican, he sure doesn’t vote like it. I would think he is one of the most liberal “Republicans”.
I just asumed Stace was going to run against him so we know he’s done after the next election anyway. This is probably one of those Republican issues Stace is upset with those who broke rank from the party.
I hope the legislature had enough money to make sure the bathroom stalls were cleaned and an abundance of toilet paper….for the return of the great Stace!
It’s interesting that the remarks in the above post say nothing to justify preventing the formation of new parties or preventing those parties from running candidates for major offices. But let’s look at what the remarks do say.
“Democrats have abused the law for years by using placeholders so they can recruit past the deadline.”
Giving citizens alternatives isn’t abuse. Denying them alternatives is abuse.
“Why should R candidates need 2x the signatures that D candidates do, when R’s have 45% of the registered voters and D’s have 35%?”
So Democrats have at least two candidates, and Republicans have fewer than 10. Our primaries are publicly funded. Recognized parties ought to be allowed to participate, but within reasonable limits.
If Republicans ever decide they want a 10-candidate primary, they ought to pay for it themselves. In the meantime, they ought to stop using their signature requirements as an excuse to deprive other parties and independent candidates of ballot access.
“The last change is with independents. This puts them on equal footing with the R’s and D’s – collecting signatures from Independents and requiring the same percentage. ”
An independent campaign doesn’t get the massive exposure of a taxpayer-financed primary election, or any of the other advantages that come through an organized party network, or the freedom to name a replacement if the candidate relocates in June or gets sick in July.
And trying to track down signatures from independents who have no organization or common ideology—and tend to be less politically engaged—wouldn’t be “equal footing” in any case.
Besides that, just because a citizen registers with a party affiliation, the government has no more right to prevent that citizen from nominating—or becoming—an independent candidate than it does to prevent him or her from voting for one.
“What will the anti-69 campaign say? ‘Let Dems continue to abuse the placeholder law’ or ‘Save easy petitions for Dems’ don’t have a great ring to it.”
This has a nice ring to it: “Let Americans choose their leaders in free elections.”
Hyperbole…
obviously the answer, to placate the democrats, would be to adopt this policy, and also adopt a wide open policy with no rules, so that they can do what the national democrats do, simply pick and choose what they want to obey at any given time.
This was a very good change. It’s too bad that they also weren’t able to pass a bill requiring a larger number of signatures for a referendum.
Anybody remember the details behind the Tom Dempster run as an Independent?
Dempster failed to get the correct number of signatures on his petitions. I believe he had something mislabeled on the petitions which caused them to be tossed out. At that time, the requirement was that anyone affiliated with a political party needed to have their petitions in by a certain date. Those choosing to run as an independent had a different date. If my memory is correct, it was even after the primary.
“Those choosing to run as an independent had a different date. If my memory is correct, it was even after the primary.”
The following is copied from the comments on another South Dakota blog.
Since 1996, I believe our Republican state legislature has moved the filing deadline for independent candidates forward at least three times: first from August to two weeks after the primaries, then to the day of the primaries, and finally to the current date in April.
When the legislature first moved the date from August to June, Ralph Nader sued and won, forcing the state to move the deadline back to August, but the ruling only applied to presidential candidates.
When the legislature tried to move the date from June to April in 2009, Secretary of State Chris Nelson warned, “At some point, an independent’s going to challenge that. Their question to the court is going to be, what is the state’s compelling interest for compelling … an independent candidate to file so early?” Nelson added, “The state doesn’t need to know who independent candidates are until August, when we begin putting the ballot together.”
The 2009 bill, which was cosponsored by Jason Gant, was defeated. In 2012, the same bill was reintroduced. Secretary of State Jason Gant testified in support, and it passed. Shantel Krebs voted in favor of the bill.
There are clear legal precedents declaring independent and minor-party early petition deadlines invalid. The only interest in an earlier date for independent candidates is not a state interest but a partisan one. There’s simply no moral justification for Democrats, Libertarians or independents to be held to early filing deadlines for races in which they have no primaries.
Since 1938, North Dakota has had more than 30 non-major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate. Iowa has had about 50, and Minnesota has had more than 60. Including Gordon Howie and Larry Pressler in 2014, South Dakota has had 8.
Earlier this evening I’d googled “sb 69” and found the link below. It’s to a detailed article by the Independent Voter Network that rips the bill to shreds.
http://ivn.us/2015/03/26/south-dakota-voters-lose-choice-at-ballot-box/
Correction: The article was apparently self-published by independent political activist Andy Smith and not edited by any member of the IVN editorial team.