Guest Column: The Case for HB 1200 and Ballot Reform (updated)

(Editor’s Note – The table below has been updated to remove a couple of inaccuracies – PP)

The Case for HB 1200 and Ballot Reform
by Mark Mickelson, Speaker of the House

Dakota Territory was divided into North Dakota and South Dakota at statehood for a simple reason.    The 1880’s railroad political lobby wanted four pro-railroad U.S. Senators to continue the federal government’s financial support for the construction of railroad lines.

After gaining statehood in 1889, Civil War veterans and immigrant farmers settled in South Dakota.  Our South Dakota founders did not trust our local government officials completely, as they were afraid they could succumb to the far-away railroad titans to effectively “buy” our government.  As a protection against this measure, South Dakota became the first state in the nation to fully embrace a citizen’s right to petition its government.

It is our right, as South Dakota citizens, to have the public vote on the quality of our ideas at the ballot box if we gather the appropriate number of signatures.

This year we saw this process play out as it was intended in 1889 with the successful 2016 pay-day lending interest rate cap ballot initiative (initiated measure 21).

However, I submit to you that the remaining initiated measures reflect a perversion of our original purpose.  The very system created to protect us against the influence of big money from outside the state has been hijacked by out of state special interests.

In 2016, there were seven initiated measures, including four that proposed to re-write our constitution.

• Six of the seven ideas were brought to us by out of state political and business interests.
• $8 million was spent in support of the initiated measures and amendments, 91% from out of state.
• $12 million was spent in total on the ten measures (including three referred), 83% from out-of-state;
• Over 60% of the money came from groups that do not have to disclose their contributors; dark money, some say.
• Three passed, four failed.

	Description	Pass/Fail	Proponents	Opponents	Money raised Pro (for)	Money raised Con (against)
IM 21	36% pay-day lending cap	Pass (76%)	Former state Rep. Steve Hickey (R), former Daschle staffer Steve Hildebrand (D	Select Management Resources (pay-day lending business)	$76,243 73% in-state	$1,285,702 0% in-state
IM22	Government ethics/public financing for candidates	Pass (51.5%)	Represent Us Florence, MA Liberal	Americans for Prosperity, DC, Conservative	$1,726,198, 2% in-state 61% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$640,865, 2% in-state 48% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE
IM23	Pro-Union	Fail	Americans for Fairness Chicago, Illinois Labor Union	AGC of South Dakota National Right to Work Committee	$873,793 0% in-state NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$296,283 50% in-state PARTIAL CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE
CA S	Crime victims rights (Marsy’s law)	Pass (70%)	Henry Nicholaus (California) and Jason Glodt (in-state Republican lobbyist)	Criminal defense bar	$2,001,469 0% in-state	$4,850 100% in-state
CA T	Legislative redistricting	Fail	SD Farmer’s Union, Democrat Party	SD Farm Bureau	$498,941 100% in-state 83% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$1,500 100% in-state
CA U	Usury law – unlimited interest rate with signature	Fail	Select Management Resources	Center for Responsible Lending	$1,879,623 0% in-state	$23,205 9% in-state
CA V	Non-partisan elections	Fail	Open Primaries Take It Back, Org.	SD Republican Party	$1,819,248 15% in-state 79% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$287,076 100% in-state

Is it possible out of state interests are using our low signature requirements and cheap media markets in an attempt to buy our ballot initiative process?   If so, they will have turned our state founders’ intent completely on its head.

Our system needs safeguarding if we are to restore our system to one that serves the people of South Dakota.  We have two sensible measures pending which have passed the South Dakota House and are pending in the South Dakota Senate:

HB1074:                This proposal limits certain out of state contributions to a ballot question committee at $100,000.

HB1200:                This proposal requires all organizations which contribute more than $25,000 to a ballot question committee to disclose their top 50 donors.   A transparency measure designed to shed a little light on the contributors associated with these largely out of state organizations.

HB1200 merely asks that a group allow the voter to put a name and face with the otherwise nameless, faceless organizations that come into South Dakota to advocate for their public policy interests.

Think of The Club for Growth (conservative Washington D.C. based think tank); Americans for Fairness (Illinois Union affiliated group); Americans For Prosperity (Washington D.C. conservative – David Koch founded); Represent US (Massachusetts liberal) and many other groups.

These organizations do not have children that attend our schools, they do not attend our churches and you will not see them at the basketball game this weekend.  That is because they do not live here and likely have never been here.   I have worked with their representatives to try to overcome their objections to HB1200 and do you know who is calling their shots?    Their Washington D.C. lawyers.    Let’s limit their involvement unless they can demonstrate either residency or a legitimate business interest in South Dakota.  At the very least, let’s at least make them tell us who they are.

I urge you to contact your state Senator and ask them to support both of these proposals.