In the legislature this session Attorney General Marty Jackley has several bills tweaking open government laws. As I’m sure we’ll see this session, legislators will be demanding more transparency in how government operates. Yet, at the same time we have House Bills 1083 and 1084 being introduced, weaponizing criminal law against taking note of legislators’ residential addresses, and wiping that same information from voter files.
That doesn’t sound very open. It doesn’t lend itself to transparency, and the threat of running afoul of a felony would cause most news organizations from even consider running a story that notes this information. It seems more like legislators will be voting on creating a protected class for themselves and standing apart from every other Joe Schmoe in the state. That’s bad and contrary to a free society.
Why is disclosure of this information important for voters? It is important to the responsibility they take on to fairly and equally represent the people of their district, their adherence to the laws the rest of us have to follow, and so voters may ensure that they live where they claim to live.
And they’re responsible to the voters to do that. The Secretary of State isn’t charged with verification. Legislators themselves aren’t that great about enforcing it. In past controversies of that nature, once they’re sworn in, they’ve claimed that the time for it is in the election.
So, it’s up to voters to judge. And if that information has now been designated as protected and secret under a proposed charge of a felony offense, then they’ve effectively silenced critics. Is that what we’ve elected legislators to do? To use the legal system to crush and imprison critics? If so, it’s a much different America than the one I thought I lived in.
I view elected officials as being on the same level as everyday people. No better, and no worse. And the availability of their un-redacted voter registration records should remain vital information with a public interest. In fact, I’ve written what might be dozens of news stories which are directly related to where candidates and legislators live as important and very factual information. More recent stories include:
And those are the most recent examples. There have been many others over the years, but you get the point. This all started with the examination of public records – including voter registration – and public information.
The first problem with the legislation is that Public information is how you eliminate elected officials’ temptation to flout the law, uncover conflicts of interest, and how a free citizenry can investigate improper actions. Making it privileged flies in the face of the public’s interest.
—
Part two of the problem with this legislation is a big question that we face right now in just plain communication: How do you get ahold of the people we sent to Pierre?
We have all these people who we sent to Pierre to represent us and – as of last year – they’ve removed their home addresses from the legislative website where we used to be able to write to them independently and say “Please support my bill” or “you’re great” or as the case might be, “you stink.” Now, we’re limited to sending them mail up to the State Capitol. Which is great during session. But what about the rest of the time?
They might argue that we can e-mail them, which from some e-mail addresses doesn’t work so well in the system controlled by state government. And even in this day and age, especially for older people – not everyone has e-mail.
As many legislators have listed, another alternative is that we can call them at the phone numbers they have listed with their legislative profiles on the LRC website. The problem here is that many (most?) just provide the phone number to the House or Senate desk in the chamber. Has anyone tried to do this in July? This does not work so well at any time outside of session. It places the time and manner of constituent’s communication with legislators under the control of legislators. Not the people they work for.
Maybe it sounds like some tin-foil has rubbed off on my head, but these bills – 1083 and 1084 – come from a place of elitism, and placing legislators above us all. In terms of communication, it says it’s ok for elected officials including legislators to have your address and send you mail (especially during campaign season). But if you want to do the same.. that’s a privilege reserved for them.
—
Interestingly, I was informed today by a lobbyist that Speaker of the House Jon Hansen has now declared that some of the public restrooms in the State Capitol building are now solely reserved for legislators. Kind of like the protections being offered by the proposed legislation – they’re a bit elitist. Which gets to the third part of the problem with this legislation. Why are certain public officials singled out for special treatment, but not the rest? According to the proposed law making it a felony to disclose such information..
For the purposes of this section, “public official” means:
(1) An elected official holding statewide office;
(2) A federal or state legislator;
(3) A federal or state judge or justice; or
(4) A law enforcement officer as defined in § 22-1-2.
I don’t know that they publicize Judge’s addresses now, and for the record, I think judges and law enforcement officers could be treated differently, as they are enforcing laws and not representing voters. But according to the proposal, this is the definition they’re planning to work under..
(22) “Law enforcement officer,” any officer, prosecutor, or employee of the state or any of its political subdivisions or of the United States, or, while on duty, an agent or employee of a railroad or express company or security personnel of an airline or airport, who is responsible for the prevention, detection, or prosecution of crimes, for the enforcement of the criminal or highway traffic laws of the state, or for the supervision of confined persons or those persons on supervised release or probation;
We’re worrying about railroad agents? A separate reason this legislation is not ready for prime time.
But getting back to topic of the publicly elected officials. Who do these proposed changes in law cover, and who does it not?
- U.S. Senator (Protected)
- U.S. Representative (Protected)
- Governor and Lieutenant Governor (Protected)
- Secretary of State (Protected)
- Attorney General (Protected)
- State Auditor (Protected)
- State Treasurer (Protected)
- Commissioner of School and Lands (Protected)
- Public Utilities Commissioner (Protected)
- 105 Legislators (35 Senate, 70 House) – (All Protected)
- County Commissioners
- County Sheriff (Protected)
- State’s Attorney (Protected)
- County Auditor
- County Register of Deeds
- County Finance Official (Combined office Counties)
- Mayors
- City Commissioners
- School Board members
Bold text are those in the protected class under House Bill 1083. The offices in red are those the law proposes throwing to the wolves. If the argument is that we need to protect elected officials from people who would do them harm, why does this law propose cutting things off at the legislative level (except Sheriff and State’s attorney by virtue of being law enforcement)? Why are legislators worthy of protection, but County Commissioners and School Board members are not? Sorry, Mayor Tenhaken. You might represent more than half of the people on this chart, but you’re not on the “special” list being proposed.
Where does the protected class start, and where does it stop? As far as this legislation is concerned, it seems to stop with them.
—
The problem is that this proposed legislative package – HB 1083 and 1084 – falls apart under many arguments. 1083 and 1084 are bad for transparency & open government. They’re horrible for citizens having access to communicate with the people who are supposed to represent them. And the measure is elitist, singling out some officials, including themselves, while excluding others.
Voters should take strong notice on where legislators sit on this measure, and whether they support the harsh legislation and preferential treatment it proposes? Or are they in favor of being one of the people they’ve been elected to represent.
Mitchell, S.D. — Fifty year Mitchell resident, businessman, and community servant Terry Sabers today announced his candidacy for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20, citing a lifetime of service and a deep desire to ensure South Dakota remains a place where his children and grandchildren can build their futures.
As a Republican candidate, Sabers is focused on protecting the South Dakota way of life, supporting families, strengthening technical and workforce education, respecting taxpayers, and ensuring young people have real opportunities to stay and succeed here.