I was in a meeting recently where a legislator spoke about the drafting of a measure that could come this next year, adding another option for candidates to achieve the ballot. And while it’s used in several other states, it would represent a seismic shift of the way things are done here.
The genesis of it, is that frankly, legislators are growing weary over petition issues, especially when it comes to the ridiculousness of Annette Bosworth, her husband, and the resulting court trial(s), as well as subsequent allegations against Steve Hickey for a similar situation, and other assorted minor incidents. Because it’s not as if everyone, especially the Attorney General, doesn’t have bigger fish to fry.
So, what I’m hearing may come to fruition is a bill to allow candidates – as an alternative to collecting signatures – is simply to write a check to register their candidacy with the state.
If a candidate has to collect 50 signatures, they could instead write a $50 check to register their candidacy. As opposed to writing a check, they could instead still collect petition signatures….. but, the option would be there to simply pay up to run.
As far as I know, the bill hasn’t been submitted yet. And I go back and forth on the issue. But I’m wondering what you, the faithful SDWC reader, thinks about it.
Would it solve some headaches? Or does it take something away from the process?
This is a great idea! $ 50 for the legislature, $ 250.00 for a constitutional office, and $ 500 to run for Governor, the US Senate or US House.
I believe it would be more for the statewide’s – again, based on the number of signatures they need. Probably closer to $1500-1800
That’s fine! I think $ 1500 or $ 1800 is still doable. This approach would definitely make a lot of sedimentary incumbents nervous about last minute primary challenges, however. 😉
I’m against that. It sounds too much like giving those with money a break while the candidate with a smaller bank account has to work for the privilege of being a candidate. And even though it isn’t too difficult to get on the ballot, filling up a petition means putting effort into the decision to run, which makes people who aren’t that serious think twice about putting their name on the ballot. The petition process has worked well for decades. A few problems recently doesn’t mean it should be changed.
Seriously….Why does every fee issue have to be about the haves versus the have-nots? Show me a serious political candidate , big bank account or not, who couldn’t raise a couple thousand dollars to file for an office. Let’s entertain new ideas which might actually open the process to more participation.
Thank you for saying this.
This is excellent. It’s time to end the false populism in this state. I’ve been pitching this to legislators and fellow county GOPers for a while.
As to Mark N’s comment the funds used to get on the ballot, which I hope is minimal, should be able to come from campaign funds which show a serious level of support and dedication as a candidate.
This is something that all of us Republicans should support, proudly. First, we don’t have to spend precious time and resources collecting signatures for our friends and we can get right into debating the issues of the day which we will always win. On top of that, I have heard credible rumours that the Dems will dedicate themselves to challenging signatures in an attempt to prevent ballot access to Republicans. That’s not good. Dems have a proven record that when the can’t win at the ballot box they take it to the court room.
I whole heartedly endorse a two-track system for getting on the ballot (money or signatures) for candidates.
Tony, I did a little fact-checking on your following comment:
“First, we don’t have to spend precious time and resources collecting signatures for our friends and we can get right into debating the issues of the day which we will always win.”
I guess you weren’t completely accurate with your assertion that you always win the issues of the day. These are all BIG Republican issues, down the crapper.
2006 IM 2 Tobacco Tax MANDATE – over 60%
2008 IM 11 Abortion LANDSLIDE – over 55%
2010 Referendum 12 Smoking MANDATE – over 64%
2010 Amendment K Union Secret Ballots UNBELIEVABLE – almost 80%
2014 IM 17 Patient Choice MANDATE – over 64%
2014 IM 18 Minimum Wage LANDSLIDE – over 55%
So what is happening here? Why are these important foundation Republican ideologies failing so badly over and over?
Here’s why:
When it comes to voting for politicians in South Dakota, many of the voters are guided by the “R.” Since their Grandpa was an “R” and their Dad was an “R” and they had that “R” on their birth certificate, they vote for the person with the “R.”
But when they have to consider issues where they aren’t guided (or more-accurately misguided) by the “R,” they vote differently than what the Republicans stand for.
That is why on almost every issue that is sacred to Republicans – denying choice to women, keeping wages very low, “freedom” to smoke anywhere they want, against any and all taxes, and especially crushing unions – the Republicans have been hammered time after time.
These are Republican foundational beliefs and the voters of South Dakota hammer these beliefs time after time. Since there are so many more Republican voters than Democrats, one could only deduce that a LOT of Republicans are voting for these measures – many winning by landslide, mandate or unbelievable margins.
So to use a tired, old axiom – Tony, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. When it comes to the battle of ideas, Republicans are losing badly time after time in their own Red state.
Your point is tired. None of those issues would have passed without extensive and strong support from Republicans. Democrats don’t have a monopoly on ballot issues, regardless of how much the democrat party tries to take credit.
No, the point is not tired. If there was strong support for the republicans in Pierre, why would a majority of the public approve these at the ballot box, after they are cast aside during the legislative session?
To balance the tables, the fee for ballot access should escalate as your near the deadline or the deadline should come sooner for simply paying for access. Dissuade those knee jerk, last second folks.
Eh, the petition process not only sets a short first hurdle proving support but it’s a good test of character. If you can’t handle a petition drive legally you probably shouldn’t be running.
Petitions should not be considered any indication of support.
There should be no fee for issues. Ballot issues should always have a signature requirement.
Looks like a good idea to me too. The signature gathering phase of political campaigns has become, of late, a seemingly hazardous political minefield with few redeeming social qualities. One shouldn’t have to subject themselves to crucifixion just to get on (or off) a ballot. 😉
I’ve been a fan of this idea for a long time. Pay a filing fee equal to 1% of the annual salary of the office being sought.
Nice revenue for the SOS office and no headaches. Nobody would be afraid some blogger might embarrass anybody for signing somebody’s petition either.
As long as there is an option I think it’s a good idea . If you live in a large rural district it cost a lot more than $50 to drive the district & collect a good representation of your constituents signatures . The downside is losing the face to face contact .
I’d encourage you to work on a bill this session under the caveat that it does not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2017.
I would say NO! Nebraska has this and they had a number of governor candidates who paid the fee and dilluted the vote easily. No vetting process in having the ability to pay a fee.
I say face the citizens and get some signatures.
I always considered the primary election the vetting process. That is, after all, when the party officially endorses a candidate. Petitions are not a vetting process.
I’m with Liberty Dick. If a candidate doesn’t want to get out and get signatures or doesn’t have volunteers to do so, they have no business being on the ballot.
BTW, I think we should ban paid petition gatherers.
Its been tried. Out right bans on compensation of been ruled unconstitutional in other states. The best we can do is prohibit being paid by the signature. Although bonuses for reaching certain goals are still allowed.
That’s pretty old school, Troy. The time is fast approaching when all politics will be conducted online. Some might argue that time is already upon us.
Kill this bill as soon as it hits a committee or ballot box. Buying your way into an election is simply too easy and has too many avenues for corrupted individuals to scam any election process. If you don’t have the character or drive to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot you surely will find the legislative process overbearing.
Although this idea would eliminate the need for another prosecution of someone who has the audacity to challenge an establishment RINO, it is a bad idea.
Gathering signatures forces the candidate or circulator to get out and actually visit with people. It is a great chance to discuss issues with voters and should not be considered a chore. A person needs the willingness to put in effort before getting on the ballot. Money should not buy that access.
Are you asserting that the only way a candidate meets the public is through the petition process? Once they’re on the ballot that’s the end of the campaign? I don’t think so. If that’s your idea of a campaign then the candidates who do that have no business being elected.
A campaign is how you get to meet voters. Stop thinking that this petition process shows support or seriousness as a candidate. It does not. It’s used as a campaign prop.
Most of the time friends of the candidate carry the petitions. I really don’t see how the argument can be made that petition circulation adds anything to the political process.