Breaking – Open Primary Elections Ballot Question Petition Rejected by Secretary of State

Open Primary Elections Ballot Question Petition Rejected by Secretary of State

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, March 2, 2018

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that the petition submitted for an initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing open primary elections was rejected by her office.

“My staff have been working diligently to review petitions,” stated Secretary Krebs. “An Initiated Constitutional Amendment requires 27,741 valid signatures in order to be placed on the ballot. This initiated constitutional amendment petition included 37,197 signatures. We reviewed a random sample of signatures, and only 68.57 percent (37,197 x 68.57% = 25,505 valid signatures, not meeting the 27,741 signatures required) were found to be valid.”

A rejected petition cannot be challenged to the office of the Secretary of State, however that does not prohibit a citizen from challenging the rejection of a ballot question petition in circuit court.

The remaining four petitions will be reviewed by the Secretary of State’s office in the order in which they were received. The South Dakota Legislature also has the ability to include constitutional amendments on the 2018 ballot and South Dakota citizens have the ability to submit a referendum petition concerning laws passed during the 2018 Legislative session.

For more detailed information on potential 2018 Ballot Questions, click here.

###

2-1-17.1.   Submission of affidavit challenging petition to secretary of state–Appeal. Within thirty days after a statewide petition for an initiated constitutional amendment, initiated measure, or referendum has been validated and filed, any interested person who has researched the signatures contained on the petition may submit an affidavit to the Office of Secretary of State to challenge the petition. The affidavit shall include an itemized listing of each specific deficiency in question. Any challenge to the following items is prohibited under this challenge process:

(1)      Signer does not live at address listed on the petition;

(2)      Circulator does not live at address listed on the petition;

(3)      Circulator listed a residence address in South Dakota but is not a South Dakota resident;

(4)      Circulator did not witness the signers;

(5)      Signatures not included in the random sample; and

(6)      Petition that was originally rejected.

Any challenge by the same person or party in interest shall be included in one affidavit.

The original signed affidavit shall be received by the Office of Secretary of State by 5:00 p.m. central time on the deadline date. If the affidavit challenges any item that is prohibited by this section, only that line item shall summarily be rejected. A challenge to a line item is not a challenge to the petition as a whole.

The secretary of state’s decision regarding a challenge may not be challenged a second time with the secretary of state, but may be appealed to the circuit court of Hughes County. If a person fails to challenge a petition pursuant to this section, it does not deny that person any other legal remedy to challenge the filing of an initiative or referendum petition in circuit court. A challenge to a petition in circuit court may include items prohibited in this section.

31 thoughts on “Breaking – Open Primary Elections Ballot Question Petition Rejected by Secretary of State”

  1. Big mistake was hiring the pothead group to circulate these petitions with the admitted forgeries that more than likely had more and the always super high error rate associated with this group.

    1. Oh, so you do know what the word challenge means. Or is this challenging you speak of used only against “outsiders”?

  2. Fantastic Friday!

    The people rejected this last time around and now the Secretary of State’s office has rejected it!

    key word REJECTED

  3. How many are left for the SoS to check? The Recreational MJ ballot initiative sold as medical MJ?

  4. One of Dennert’s arguments was that his bill to allow Independents to vote in the Republican primary would “take the wind out of the sails” of the Open Primary issue on the ballot. Looks more like Dennert’s bill was the Democrat’s Plan B.

  5. I’m glad it was rejected. As a registered Republican why would I want my party’s nominee chosen by independents, demos, socialists, green-partiers, etc? It is nonsense, and I hope Dennert rethinks his support for this. If not, find a new party.

    1. Fred I agree. Knowing who and where New Approach South Dakota were able to get their petitioners those forgeries we know about are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

  6. Dennert claims to have sponsored his bill to head off Open Primaries when it may not be an issue and we could have been left with his horrible bill.

    Dennert’s lesson learned should be that he should never try to be a Liberal or appease them.

  7. I also wonder how much this failed attempt cost the tax-payers. I tweeted this question to the SOS. If I receive a response, I’ll post it.

  8. This gives a lot of hope that more of these crazy liberal ballot measures will not make the signature requirement either!

  9. Looks like the maitre d’ is going to be busy seating guests this weekend.
    Kirby, Knudson & Knobe, your table is ready.
    bon appetit !

  10. This isn’t a clear cut issue. On one hand, political parties want to claim protection from interference by outside influence whether that influence is government or private. On the other hand, the two main political parties are the one’s who use the legislature to establish prohibitive petition signature threshold limitations for their third-party or independent challengers. Isn’t it nice that the Republicans and Democrats are able to write stricter rules for anyone who isn’t part of their private clubs than they themselves have to follow?

    1. prohibitive petition threshold??

      Constitution and Libertarian parties need 250 signatures to run for governor or US House vs. Republicans need 1955 and Democrats need 706.

      Maybe instead of complaining you make your preferred party stronger? instead of the parties that have worked hard over time to do so.

        1. At least it was an argument…vs none by you…

          Prove your point..debate —offer ideas

    2. Of course it’s a clear cut issue. The parties get to decide who should vote in their primaries.
      Anybody who wants to vote in the Republican primary can register as a Republican.
      Don’t worry: there’s no IQ test involved.

      1. There’s also no moral “test” involved. Slap an R behind your name and welcome to the party;)

  11. The same paid petitioners Krebs is using. Hope her staff is as diligent checking hers.

  12. Just an FYI New Approach did NOT run this campaign. We co-coordinated and ran staff for all the issues. I find it amusing some of you want to pin the validity rate on us for this one BUT no applause on the 81% & 82% validity on both of Mickelson’s issues.

    Yawn….get some new material. We had one forgery issue and we reported it to the SOS & the police. Due diligence was done on our part.

    Thanks!

    1. Mel how did your civil and criminal lawsuit go against the SDSU police department where the truth would come out?

      1. pretty hard to argue when it was captured on video and then you encouraged your followers to harass that police officer.

  13. Mel, how many pot heads does it take to screw in a light bulb? Or follow instructions to collect signatures?

  14. Tsk Tsk those pesky confidentiality agreements. My children are doing fine thanks for asking.

    The “pot head” rhetoric is pretty weak. I am not a cannabis user, there is difference in legally attempting to change a bad law VS being a “pot head” you may want to learn to distinguish between the 2.

    Have a great day.

    1. Mel, yeah right! So the truth came out and once again playing the victim & being a drama queen with the media did not pay off but further eroded any credibility you had left. SDSU campus police were vindicated!

  15. Like I said confidentiality agreement prevents me commenting. It’s pretty sad when someone has to “anonymously” attack children online. Pretty pathetic in my book. You may want to fact check yourself as we never did any media regarding this incident.

    I truly hope your children never end up in a situation like this and if they do (because kids make dumb choices) I do hope people treat you and your family exactly like you have ours.

    Have a great day.

    1. more deflection and not accepting responsibility. It was all over the news media and social media and you contacted them! It’s a pattern with you and you have zero credibility with whatever your pushing.

Comments are closed.