Out-of-state money ban likely to be challenged in court

Pat Powers

A ban on out of state contributions towards ballot measures was passed at the ballot box last week, but it sounds like people are already lining up to challenge the measure as unconstitutional:

“I think these guys are going to take their chips and go play in Idaho or North Dakota and leave us alone,” Mickelson said. As for a lawsuit against the out-of-state ban, he said: “Bring it on. We’ll win. And it’s a fight worth having.”

But Don Haggar, state director of Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota, said he expects it to be overturned.

“I think it’s clearly unconstitutional on several levels and we are examining our options as far as potential litigation is concerned,” Haggar said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s free-speech protections as prohibiting any limitations on money in ballot measure elections, Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the nonprofit Common Cause, told The Associated Press earlier this year.

Read it here.

Do we think the law will last through the next election?

3 thoughts on “Out-of-state money ban likely to be challenged in court”

  1. My feelings are mixed. IMO, ballot measures backed mainly by out-of-state donors = mostly bad for SD. Out of state folks are not (in general) looking out for our best interests. They have their own hidden agendas. We can’t let their maladroit policies pass, so we expend tons of time, money, and effort fighting — just to restart every election cycle. It’s a waste; our energy should be focused on more productive civic endeavors. When Mickelson says banning out of state money is “a fight worth fighting,” I see what he means. He’s a bright guy. I’d love to eliminate/curtail the problem.

    On the other hand, I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Haggar’s prediction: the Judicial Branch will look askance at this particular ban. He’s a bright guy, too. And I think legal precedent is on his side. Guessing the court will enjoin enforcement of the ban pending review. Just my .02

  2. I voted for this, but I tend to agree with Haggar. On what basis are out-of-staters forbidden to be involved in state elections? I am thinking there is a freedom of speech issue here.

Comments are closed.