7 thoughts on “House Bill 1263 Passes House to move Bond Elections to Primary and General Elections”
I have a couple concerns with this bill.
1. People who don’t know anything about the school board elections will now be voting in those elections.
2. I suppose this would end the ability of Schools to pass bond and infrastructure taxes on constituents during low turnout elections.
If I understand this right it has two consequences. The first one is bad. The second one is good.
If there is one thing I am confident, nobody is a school district is unaware of the issues on bond issues. I am less confident about why school board elections have low turnout.
The explanation that makes the most sense is I hear often is voters without students are willing to defer to parent.
The one I hope is not the reason is a laziness to vote on just a few positions especially when it is out most local and direct opportunity to influence out government.
As it should be. Saving time and money for everyone.
AFP is a joke, they sold out on issues
Finally an excellent piece of legislation. Bravo.
This is a great bill. I have found that despite popular belief, most South Dakotan’s do their research and are informed when they go to the polls. This will bring more awareness to these important issues and consistency to when and where people can make their voice heard.
As a well known South Dakota politico once said “South Dakota voters will always surprise you with how smart they are.”
Here are three reasons mentioned on the House floor as to why this is a good idea:
1. Sioux Falls school bond issue in 2018. Less than 25% turnout.
2. Brandon Valley school bond issue in 2019. Less than 10% turnout.
3. Rapid City school bond issue this week. Less than 25% turnout.
The bond issues may be worthy to be passed. Many times they are. But why not hold the elections when people are used to voting? The turnout could only be higher. The higher turnout may even help bond issues pass. The only opposition I have heard is from the school lobbyists. Why do they prefer lower turnout dates? What are they afraid of? The local control argument is weak. After all, isn’t having district voters weigh in on these issues local control?
Comments are closed.
Discover more from South Dakota War College
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
I have a couple concerns with this bill.
1. People who don’t know anything about the school board elections will now be voting in those elections.
2. I suppose this would end the ability of Schools to pass bond and infrastructure taxes on constituents during low turnout elections.
If I understand this right it has two consequences. The first one is bad. The second one is good.
If there is one thing I am confident, nobody is a school district is unaware of the issues on bond issues. I am less confident about why school board elections have low turnout.
The explanation that makes the most sense is I hear often is voters without students are willing to defer to parent.
The one I hope is not the reason is a laziness to vote on just a few positions especially when it is out most local and direct opportunity to influence out government.
As it should be. Saving time and money for everyone.
AFP is a joke, they sold out on issues
Finally an excellent piece of legislation. Bravo.
This is a great bill. I have found that despite popular belief, most South Dakotan’s do their research and are informed when they go to the polls. This will bring more awareness to these important issues and consistency to when and where people can make their voice heard.
As a well known South Dakota politico once said “South Dakota voters will always surprise you with how smart they are.”
Here are three reasons mentioned on the House floor as to why this is a good idea:
1. Sioux Falls school bond issue in 2018. Less than 25% turnout.
2. Brandon Valley school bond issue in 2019. Less than 10% turnout.
3. Rapid City school bond issue this week. Less than 25% turnout.
The bond issues may be worthy to be passed. Many times they are. But why not hold the elections when people are used to voting? The turnout could only be higher. The higher turnout may even help bond issues pass. The only opposition I have heard is from the school lobbyists. Why do they prefer lower turnout dates? What are they afraid of? The local control argument is weak. After all, isn’t having district voters weigh in on these issues local control?