AP reporting that SOS has approved 2nd ballot measure, Mickelson out of state money ban

Pat Powers

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that the Secretary of State has approved the Mickelson backed ban on out of state funds for ballot measures with about 1000 signatures to spare:

A South Dakota ballot measure that would ban out-of-state fundraising for citizens’ initiatives will go before voters in November, the state’s chief elections official said Thursday.

The measure would impose major new restrictions on how South Dakota ballot questions are funded, but experts have said such proposals are unlikely to survive a legal challenge. Secretary of State Shantel Krebs’ office said in a statement the ballot question will be named Initiated Measure 24.

And…

Backers needed nearly 14,000 valid signatures for the South Dakota initiative to go before voters. Supporters turned in roughly 18,000 signatures, and a random sampling found about 81 percent were valid.

The deadline for a citizen to challenge the measure’s approval for the ballot is Feb. 5.

Read it all here.

There’s no word yet whether outside groups will be challenging the petition approval.

7 thoughts on “AP reporting that SOS has approved 2nd ballot measure, Mickelson out of state money ban”

  1. That is unfortunate.

    While I agree with the idea, I believe it is unconstitutional and we are buying a law suit for the tax payers if we approve it.

    VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING!

  2. Mickelson already addressed constitutional concerns: he went to Harvard and we commonfolk are just knotheads if we try to talk about the Constitution. He knows best! All hail, King Mickelson!

  3. It is sad that so many people who talk about how much they love the Constitution and Constitutional rights are also willing to take them away from people as soon as they do not like what those people say. Mickelson can claim that he knows what is constitutional better than we commoners, but the fact of the matter is that he wants to ban some people from speaking or writing about ballot issues. That is not good for our republic, and it does not reflect Republican views. Vote no and encourage everyone you know to vote no on the initiative.

  4. A more originalist approach would be to get rid of these initiated measures, and let elected representatives do the job of a legislature. And all those legislators would be from the state, so it would have that going for it. Funny how that works out.

  6. Yesterday’s (1/6/18) Wall Street Journal features a long interview with a Stanford University political scientist. Long quote, but see the last sentence:

    [Morris P. “Mo” Fiorina] adds that “30 years ago, an Ohioan Republican and an Oregon Republican would have faced very different primary electorates that run different kinds of races. Now, you look at their campaigns—they’re going to be the same. They’re getting their money from the same kinds of people.” The Republican in Oregon, a more liberal state, is likely to prove unelectable. For this problem there is probably no remedy. “The only thing I can see mattering would be unconstitutional,” Mr. Fiorina says—to wit, a law requiring that “all campaign contributions have to come from within the jurisdiction of the race being held.”

    Subscription required: https://www.wsj.com/articles/moderate-voters-polarized-parties-1515193066

Comments are closed.