33 states allow for candidate filing fees in lieu of petitions? Why not SD?
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?






We are entering one of the busiest travel seasons of the year. More than 80 million Americans are traveling for Thanksgiving this week. While most of them are packing up their cars and hitting the road, 6 million Americans will be boarding a plane in order to spend Thanksgiving with their loved ones.
PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office today announced that the implementation of the upgraded SDVotes Program will be adjusted to early 2027. This decision reflects the strong feedback received from county auditors who have requested additional time to thoroughly test and become comfortable with the upgraded system before it becomes part of their daily election operations.