Third Ballot Question Petition Validated for 2018 General Election Ballot
PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that the petition submitted for an initiated measure to increase the State tobacco tax and create a postsecondary technical institute fund for the purposes of lowering student tuition and providing financial support to the State postsecondary technical institutes was validated and filed by her office. It is the third ballot question to be placed on the November 6, 2018 General Election Ballot. It will be titled Initiated Measure 25.
An Initiated Measure requires 13,871 valid signatures to be placed on the ballot. This initiated measure petition included 19,025 signatures.
“We reviewed the random sample of signatures, and 82.88 percent were found to be valid,” stated Secretary Krebs.
Any citizen may challenge the Secretary of State’s approval of a ballot measure and must submit an original, signed affidavit to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office within 30 days of validation. Electronic submission of affidavits will not be accepted. The deadline for a challenge to Initiated Measure 25 would be Monday, March 19, 2018 by 5 p.m. central time.
The remaining five petitions will be reviewed by the Secretary of State’s office in the order in which they were received. The South Dakota Legislature also has the ability to include constitutional amendments on the 2018 ballot and South Dakota citizens have the ability to submit a referendum petition concerning laws passed during the 2018 Legislative session.
For more detailed information on potential 2018 Ballot Questions, click here.
###
2-1-17.1. Submission of affidavit challenging petition to secretary of state–Appeal. Within thirty days after a statewide petition for an initiated constitutional amendment, initiated measure, or referendum has been validated and filed, any interested person who has researched the signatures contained on the petition may submit an affidavit to the Office of Secretary of State to challenge the petition. The affidavit shall include an itemized listing of each specific deficiency in question. Any challenge to the following items is prohibited under this challenge process:
(1) Signer does not live at address listed on the petition;
(2) Circulator does not live at address listed on the petition;
(3) Circulator listed a residence address in South Dakota but is not a South Dakota resident;
(4) Circulator did not witness the signers;
(5) Signatures not included in the random sample; and
(6) Petition that was originally rejected.
Any challenge by the same person or party in interest shall be included in one affidavit.
The original signed affidavit shall be received by the Office of Secretary of State by 5:00 p.m. central time on the deadline date. If the affidavit challenges any item that is prohibited by this section, only that line item shall summarily be rejected. A challenge to a line item is not a challenge to the petition as a whole.
The secretary of state’s decision regarding a challenge may not be challenged a second time with the secretary of state, but may be appealed to the circuit court of Hughes County. If a person fails to challenge a petition pursuant to this section, it does not deny that person any other legal remedy to challenge the filing of an initiative or referendum petition in circuit court. A challenge to a petition in circuit court may include items prohibited in this section.
Is there a definition of “tobacco product” somplace?
Wow this could be Daugaard and Mickelson’s way of getting a tax 3 years in a row!
if Stace was a real conservative he would use his energies fighting another tax increase…HINT HINT
While one may certainly consider smoking to be a “stupid habit,” one can’t assume that as consumers, they won’t seek to avoid higher taxes by purchasing lower cost products (value brands, generic, vaping, etc) or purchasing in adjacent states with lower taxes. Four of our six contiguous states already tax tobacco products at lower rates, three at less than half South Dakota’s.
“Cigarette taxes can be touted as solutions to improve public health, but policymakers should be skeptical of using these taxes as long-term solutions to budget shortfalls. The revenue from these taxes is unstable, due to the steadily decreasing number of smokers and widespread smuggling. We have built an interactive web tool illustrating the instability of these tax revenues.
Broad-based, low-rate taxes are the proper way to correct structural problems in a state’s tax code, not high rates on already narrow bases.”
https://taxfoundation.org/state-cigarette-tax-rates-2018/
Preying on the smokers because they have a habit that they cannot break is immoral. Vote no! (And vote no on Mickelson’s other bad idea of limiting speech by banning out of state contributions to ballot committees!)
Vote no! I am against smoking myself but don’t think taxing heavily one segment of our society is right. Why are the tech schools short of funds suddenly? Maybe streamlining state agencies and number of employees would be a start vs raising taxes.