Early voting remains intact after Senate Hearing kills measure to cut voting time on 8-1 vote.

The proposal to cut the length of time available for early voting ran head-on into a brick wall yesterday, with Senate State Affairs listening to those who found the measure to be a solution to a problem that none of the county election officials had identified:

The first cannons to fire were South Dakota Secretary of State Steve Barnett and his elections division director, Kea Warne, who raised all kinds of objections about why it wouldn’t work.

“If a citizen is concerned about learning new information at a later date, they’re free to wait to cast their vote up until election day,” Barnett said.

Next came Minnehaha County Auditor Bob Litz, followed by women from more than one dozen counties across South Dakota who happened to work in county election offices but said they were speaking only for themselves.

and..

Shelly Pfaff, executive director for the South Dakota Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, said one in 10 people in South Dakota have disabilities and they need the 46 days.

Read it all here.

In case you were wanted to know how the vote went…

I was never sure why this measure was brought, because the GOP put forth a pretty darned effective GOTV program for early voting. In fact, it always seemed counter-productive, and just shooting ourselves in the foot.

But, now we can move onto more important things.

8 thoughts on “Early voting remains intact after Senate Hearing kills measure to cut voting time on 8-1 vote.”

  1. Deferring to the 41st day is a pathetic way of refusing to deal with an issue. It’s disingenuous. Either resolve the matter or don’t, but don’t actively LIE and say “we’ll deal with that on the 12th tuesday of the 18th month.”

    1. It’s actually done out of respect for the sponsor of the bill. A motion to the 41st day allows for comments and debate on the motion and bill. If you move to table a bill that is a non-debatable motion which doesn’t allow for any supporters to speak on oppose the motion to kill, they just vote.

  2. I was never sure why this measure was brought, because the GOP put forth a pretty darned effective GOTV program for early voting. In fact, it always seemed counter-productive, and just shooting ourselves in the foot.

    I’m on Brock Greenfield’s side of the fence on this. Do it because it’s the right thing to do, without worrying if it’s good for my “side” or the election offices, or whatever.

    1. Well then, how about “No one was asking for it, and every election official in the state is against it?”

      1. Did we get to 45 days because everyone was asking for it ? Just for giggles, if you had an opponent who was using a ballot harvesting tactic, would you rather they have 45 or 15 days. Now tell me it isn’t happening.

        1. I believe 45 days was originally put in because that’s the time they need for military voting.

      2. Somebody must have been asking for it? Did is just magically appear on the docket? Absentee voting makes sense, but one should have a good reason. Being able to vote a month and a half before the election for any or no reason doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t watch much TV and don’t listen to the radio much during campaign season, so it’s not a terrible inconvenience for me personally but it still doesn’t seem like the best idea.

  3. Bah. Show up on voting day and punch your tickets, people. It’s a tradition and a right. Stand up and have a little personal responsibilities and show up on voting day.

Comments are closed.