Author: @SoDakCampaigns

A promised turkey of a measure has landed upon the legislature.

A bill to restore voting rights to convicted felons before the completion of their sentence from State Senator Craig Tieszen has been introduced in the State Senate, despite earlier promised opposition from the Secretary of State.   The measure, Senate Bill 112 primed by Tieszen in the Senate and Rep. Steve Hickey in the House, would walk back a reform measure passed in 2012 which cleared up a confusing multi-tiered system which left many felons unsure if they could vote or not.

The measure is scheduled to be heard in Senate State Affairs at 10 AM tomorrow morning in Room 414.

SB 112 changes the law, basing it on whether the felon is imprisoned or not, as opposed to it being based on a convicted felon’s completion of sentence. As noted in the Argus article, Tieszen believes it’s the right thing to do:

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, says he plans push for the bill this legislative session. Tieszen says giving felons the chance to be good citizen by allowing them to vote is the right thing to do.

As noted earlier this month in an article by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the person in charge of South Dakota elections, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs ,earlier voiced opposition to the measure, as well as the person who introduced the 2012 measure, Gene Abdallah:

“I feel they should complete their entire sentence, and at this time I don’t see supporting his legislation,” said Shantel Krebs, South Dakota secretary of state. “I think there’s are a lot of questions out there such as, ‘What if a person violates their parole?’ “

Gene Abdallah, a former U.S. marshal and state lawmaker who was the prime sponsor of the revision to felony voting rights that passed in 2012, also opposed Tieszen’s proposed bill.

“I think they should wait until after their parole and after their sentence is finished,” Abdallah said.

Read it here.

Krebs brings up an excellent point about parole violators confusing the system, which would require even more of a data exchange between courts and the Secretary of State data systems than exist now.

And I can’t help but give strong deference to the original point made by the sponsor – “they should wait until after their parole and after their sentence is finished.”   When someone commits a crime, in many instances there are crime victims. Part of the process is the state obtaining justice on their behalf, and that’s done through the sentence being imposed. Justice is far from perfect, in fact, it’s quite imperfect, and rarely in proportion to the harm.

When you see these types of bills, as they talk about restoring things to those poor, poor convicted felons, I can’t help but consider that the people introducing such measures are giving far more deference to the criminals who commit the crimes, than the victims.

I do think there’s a place to give felons the chance to be good citizens. It’s by example. The example should be to complete the sentence handed down by the courts. They earned it, so they should own it. And by successfully completing it while remaining a good citizen, they’ll have earned their right to vote back.

And only then.

Talking about Senate Bill 69 some more, one thing that came up in the discussion yesterday was an amendment by State Senator Bernie Hunhoff.

On the heels of the Brown amendment passing, tightening the placeholder practice of replacing candidates on the ballot, Senator Hunhoff made a partisan attempt to give Democratic Party bosses an avenue to hand-pick candidates for the ballot, bypassing the petition process entirely.

Here’s the Hunhoff amendment:

MOTION: AMEND SB 69  (69oc)

On page 10, after line 19 of the printed bill, insert:
” Section 18. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

If no candidate submits petitions as a candidate for a legislative office from a recognized political party, the central committee members of the political party of the county or counties of that legislative district may elect a candidate, and that candidate may be appointed by the state party chair by the second Tuesday of June.”

Moved by:    Hunhoff (Bernie)
Second by:    Sutton
Action:    Failed by roll call vote. (7-2-0-0).

Read it here. (I think the vote portion of the minutes as noted on-line are in error, btw,)

And here’s the discussion that took place:

What do you think? I tend to agree that having party bosses appoint candidates is a definite negative to the process. Or do you agree with Senator Hunhoff, that it’s tough to find good candidates, so parties need to be able to fill empty slots out of party offices in Sioux Falls en masse?

Remember Annette Bosworth? (How can you forget!)    Her indictment and prosecution are based on the fact she is accused of violating her sworn statement that she circulated and witnessed several petition signatures.

“I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed line, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration.”

That sworn statement has Bosworth facing criminal charges.  Yet, there’s another portion of the petition that candidates also swear an oath to… and regularly violate with no consequence.

“I, under oath, declare that I am eligible to seek the office for which I am a candidate, that I am registered to vote as a member of the _________ party, and that if I am a legislative or county candidate I reside in the district from which I am a candidate. If nominated and elected, I will qualify and serve in that office.“

(Aside from the penalties in law ascribed to violating the oath at the bottom of the petition) Why should the oath at the bottom of the petition matter… but the one at the top is thrown out with regular abandon by South Dakota Democrats? Because as a regular and common practice, they have candidates present petitions for legislative office who have no intention of running and serving in the office for which their party nominates them.

The State Legislature took a huge step yesterday in fixing that.

State Senator Corey Brown introduced an amendment to Senate Bill 69 that strengthens the integrity of South Dakota elections by tightly constricting ability of candidates to withdraw, limiting withdrawals and eliminating the placeholder loophole. The Brown amendment sets forth:

Section 19. That chapter 12-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

If a party candidate for public office withdraws after filing petitions with the secretary of state, the appropriate party central committee may make a replacement nominee only if:

(1) The party candidate:

(a) Withdraws because of personal illness or illness of an immediate family member that was diagnosed after the petition filing and the illness prevents the candidate from performing the duties of the office sought; and

(b) Files with the withdrawal request a certificate describing the illness and signed by at least two licensed physicians;

(2) There is no other nominee for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate as of the time of the withdrawal;

(3) The party candidate has been elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in another elective office which duties conflict by law with the duties of the office sought, has become the nominee for another elective office, or is deceased; or

(4) The party candidate permanently moves from his or her physical address stated in the nominating petition filed with the secretary of state, and swears and certifies under oath before the secretary of state that the candidate has not resided in the district for a period of thirty consecutive calendar days and has no intention of resuming residency in the district.”

The Brown amendment tightly constricts the reasons for candidate withdrawal to circumstances which arise after the submission of the petition to the Secretary of State, eliminating ‘ghost candidates’ or ‘placeholders’ who are placed into the race for the sole purpose of being replaced later.

There’s more that went into the bill, and I may bring those up shortly, but this was a loophole worth closing.   Senate Bill 69 amended to underline the fact that oaths matter? This should be one measure we all move “Do pass.”