ACLU opposing House Bill 1178, slashing time for absentee voting from 46 days to 14

From my mailbox:

Don’t limit absentee voting
ACLU of South Dakota opposes House Bill 1178

The ACLU of South Dakota opposes House Bill 1178, legislation that would cut the designated time for absentee voting from 46 days to just 14.

Voting is a fundamental right of our democracy. The decisions made on school boards, city halls, at the state legislature and the United States Congress impact the lives of all South Dakotans. And while there are so many ways to influence our elected officials, there is only one way to determine who those officials will be: by voting.

That’s why it is so important that all eligible U.S. citizens who want to cast a ballot can do so. Cutting the number of days voters have to vote absentee threatens this.

“Because nothing is more sacred to our democracy than the right to vote, South Dakota should be doing everything in its power to encourage participation from all eligible voters – not making it harder, as House Bill 1178 would do,” said Libby Skarin, policy director for the ACLU of South Dakota. “Elections are central to our democracy, to our institutions and to our government’s legitimacy. Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative, you should want a fair system. Cutting the number of days to cast an absentee ballot limits the ability of South Dakotans to participate in democracy.”

The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of helping voters understand and exercise their voting rights. The ACLU has been at the forefront of the fight against voter suppression as well as the movement to allow new voter access and will continue to do so after today’s primary election and beyond.

House Bill 1178 will be heard in the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 13.

32 Replies to “ACLU opposing House Bill 1178, slashing time for absentee voting from 46 days to 14”

  1. Springer

    14 days is plenty long to vote absentee. 46 days is way too long, especially since issues sometimes arise in the latter days of a campaign that would cause voters to change their minds. 14 days should not impact anyone’s right to vote; if you can’t find time to vote in two weeks, you have a problem.

    Reply
      1. Thomas

        To quote former NFL and current Arizona State coach Herm Edwards: “Put your name on it! Just put your name on it, that’s all I say. Be a man (or a woman); put your name on it.” Quit hiding behind the anonymous label and stand up for what you allegedly believe.

        Reply
            1. Anonymous

              I am not Anonymous 12:33, by the way. I can express myself without resorting to vulgarities. Some people just think their prose has more punch with vulgarities, I guess.

              Reply
            2. Anonymous

              That being said, in response to Anonymous 12:33, I would think that Springer would be willing to give services members overseas a longer time period; I know I would.

              Reply
  2. Springer

    Military ballots are a separate issue and of course would have extended time. I am talking about voting in country. (And i made my point without resorting to name calling,)

    Reply
      1. Cliff Hadley

        Anonymous at 10:03 a.m…. Not so. The ACLU is on record that it will no longer defend conservative free speech.

        Reply
          1. Cliff Hadley

            Don’t have it in front of me, but the ACLU head has urged a more politicized agenda that favors the left. I’ll search later.

            Reply
            1. Cliff Hadley

              Found it….

              Alan Dershowitz writes in The Hill last June: The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties. It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that, for the first time in its history, the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.

              The headline in the June 8 edition of the New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections — and reinventing itself for the Trump era.” The article continues: “In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye presidential runs, the ACLU, itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the ACLU is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than 25 million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.”

              Reply
              1. Ike

                Says nothing at all like your assertion they’re trying to suppress conservative speech. My source and link directly refute that, in fact. FFS, they defended the Charlottesville Nazis, man. I can see where conservatives might not like the ACLU’s stance on PARTS of the 2nd Amendment, but they’re fairly strict constitutionalists.

                Reply
                1. Cliff Hadley

                  Two things…

                  1. You’re making a distinction without a difference. If they’re supporting the Left overtly, they will shy from anything on the right.

                  2. Nazis aren’t conservatives.

                  Reply
        1. Anonymous

          So their attempt to undermine Democratic efforts in Maryland to gerrymander out republican voters is not something we should support? Ok. If you say so.

          Reply
  3. anonymous

    A shorter voting period means less money is spent on TV ads, print ads, yard signs, consultants and a number of other places campaigns spend money. Leave it the way it is. You know, for the small business people

    Reply
    1. Springer

      If as you say shortening the early voting time means less time we are subjected to repetitious TV ads, then definitely pass it!!

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        No but there is voter fatigue to consider.
        It makes no sense at all but we all feel it: we get tired of the campaigning, advertising etc, and you start to imagine “if I vote early it will stop.” So you vote early because you want to make it stop. Of course it doesn’t stop.

        But reducing the amount of time before it starts might help. If people have only two weeks in which to vote early, the barrage of advertising will start later, reducing voter fatigue.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          That is a weird argument. You are seeking to narrow the window established to protect a constitutionally protected right on the basis of “it gets old looking at yard signs and commercials.”

          Reply
        2. Ike

          If you’re concerned about ‘voter fatigue’, why not limit the amount of time a candidate can run for office? Why place limits on the voting public vs. placing limits on when office-seekers can start announcing and campaigning?

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.