If you have read the story about the last Board of Elections meeting, a proposal was offered to allow for a filing fee in lieu of petitions signatures in running for office.
Of course.. people weren’t thrilled by it, and it became a news story:
“I’ll be honest, I’m a hard ‘no’ on this one,” said board member Austin Hoffman, who’s also a Republican candidate for state attorney general.
The proposal came from the office of Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson. Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Deadrick walked the board through a slate of 17 “concepts” for legislation that could be introduced during the annual legislative session that starts in January.
Deadrick said some other states, including Kansas, already allow people to pay to get on a ballot. A spokesperson with the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office confirmed to South Dakota Searchlight that while independents in that state collect petition signatures to earn a ballot spot, members of a political party can pay a filing fee to get on the ballot.
The South Dakota proposal would give all candidates two options for qualifying: collecting the required number of petition signatures from registered voters, as they do now, or paying a fee to have their name printed on the ballot. Under the draft, any fees collected would go into the state’s general fund. Deadrick did not specify how much candidates would be required to pay.
Despite some people being opposed to the concept being offered in SD recently, it’s actually more common than you might think, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures:
Filing fees were originally intended to deter candidates perceived as frivolous, and to help pay for the administration of elections. These fees could be exceptionally large. Some from the 1960s and 1970s were close to $40,000 once adjusted for inflation. Bullock v. Carter and Lubin v. Panish, two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 1970s, held that filing fees were only constitutional when most candidates could afford them, and they should not be the only means available for filing as a candidate.
And..
In 33 states, major party candidates are either allowed or required to pay a filing fee. The remaining 17 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands do not require major party candidates to pay a filing fee. States that do not require a filing fee generally require interested candidates to qualify through a petition process instead. State filing fees vary dramatically. Filing for a state house candidate in New Hampshire costs $2, while a Republican candidate for state senate in Alabama paid $1,079.12 to appear on the ballot in 2022, and a Democratic candidate paid $1,034.68 (in Alabama, the parties control the amount of the filing fee).
Twenty-six states impose fees on independent or unaffiliated candidates for state legislative seats. Of these, nine give the independent or unaffiliated candidate the option to file as indigent, removing the fee and using a signature requirement instead. For the 17 states that require a fee from individual candidates, the fee ranges from $15 in Montana to $250 in Hawaii and Mississippi.
Read the entire article (and see a chart) here.
33 states.. That’s 2/3, and it actually puts us in the minority of states for rejecting that as an option and going with petition signatures only.
In South Dakota, 50 signatures for state legislative candidates is not a heavy lift. But then again for most legislative candidate a fee of $250 would not be a heavy lift either.
So, why not offer either option?
Allowing filing fees is a smart move. It’ll move us away from the false populism of signature collections and offer less opportunities for error in collecting and submitting signatures, and allowing for frivolous challenges of signatures. Further, these fees can help pay for the cost of the state administering partisan elections.
I’m not saying we need to be an all or nothing, but having the option of collecting signatures or paying a filing fee is a great option – and can reduce the administrative burden on the state.
Knee jerk negative is the typical South Dakota response to new ideas. Never mind what’s working well elsewhere.
$250 seems a much lower bar than 50 signatures. you have to get 50 different people to sign for you, plus some extras to be safe. That task alone weeds out a lot more people than will $250. make it $10,000 or don’t do it at all- the benefits would be pretty marginal and the downside of the ‘pay to play’ rhetoric from the anti everything crowd far exceeds that. even a great idea at the wrong time is a bad idea.
Hoffman is no where close to part of the anti everything crowd.
This was brought by Ernie Otten in the past I believe. He had a much higher fee. At first I was against the idea but then realized Judges rarely throw out petitions in SD so it would really cut down on the excessive work load of reviewing petitions only to have a judge put someone on the ballot any way.
Good idea.
I have favored this idea for several years.
Too much time and money is wasted verifying signatures. All the SOS would have to do is verify the check clears.
Then there is the issue of giving your name and address to somebody you just met in the Walmart parking lot. Now you’re on a mailing list and nobody sane wants that.
Good thoughts. I’ve stopped signing petitions unless I directly know the person circulating.
How about a 1st time legislative candidate get the signatures then after that $250 fee for the same seat?
$1 a signature seems to be a decent amount.
It’s a big task collecting signatures, which is the first step in the seriousness of the candidate. But there should be more of a testing ground for those running to represent thousands of people. We have people in races right now who are mentally unstable. If anything, we need more ways to vet candidates, not let those with money buy their way onto the ballot. It crowds the field and makes it much harder for the public to research good candidates. Make it tougher, not easier.
The election is the testing ground. The election is the vetting of candidates.
How would this work? Constituents would be left out ? How many names could run for House in District 33? Five, 25, 50? Candidates Robert Brown, Rick Brown, Bob Brown, Joyce Braun, Mary Bowne? The clutter of similar names posted on multiple signs makes for voter confusion and lack of education about each candidate. I am not seeing this as a good option.
I do like the idea of at least 50 signatures. No, it’s not much. But if anyone out there is held up from running because they don’t want to go ask people to sign a petition, then I’m not sure they should be running. It’s a small hurdle, but if you’re not willing to look someone in the eye and tell them you want to run for office, then maybe you shouldn’t run. My suspicion is there would be people running from their basement – send in the check, and run a social media campaign. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I think candidates should still attend public events and ask voters personally for their support.
When I first looked into this idea, I saw that the fee was often 1% of the salary of the office sought.
If you are running for precinct committee man, that’s zero. For POTUS, it’s $4000.
If frivolous people want to pay the SOS $4000 each to print their names on the primary ballot, why should anyone object?