“Would you sign this petition?” It’s kind of an innocuous question that many people will be asked this summer on street corners and at county fairs.
But if you think about it, if you were on midway of a fair, and one of the transient ride operators walked up to you and your child, looked you up and down while you stood there with your child, and asked you for your home address, would you give it to them?
Most of us would decline. And then notify security. But that’s exactly what some people want South Dakotans to do with petition carriers.
The subject of laws being passed regarding petition circulation is a timely one (especially given that current laws appear to be ignored). This morning in the dead tree edition of the Argus Leader, the bastion of liberalism that is our state’s largest paper, is screaming that petition laws are sacrosanct, and need to be left alone. But doesn’t our legislature have a responsibility to address serious public safety problems that are identified?
Why is the Argus Leader complaining that there’s a new law requiring people to register – with legitimate information – that they are legitimately circulating a ballot measure, and are compliant with state laws on who can circulate, and not criminals trolling for your address.
In 2012, legislators took first steps at fixing the issue that had come up, when a sex offender had been collecting petition signatures in the Rapid City area, and constituents demanded that someone do something about it:
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved not one but two similar bills, which members said were aimed at stopping sex offenders from getting sensitive information about potential victims.
“This is a group that should not have names and addresses of petition signers,” said Rep. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls.
and…
“In allowing them to circulate petitions, we have created a unique venue where they can size up potential victims and engage them in conversation,” Thom said.
It was a first step, but as State Representative Jon Hansen notes in a Letter to the Editor today, it did not solve the problem and the abuse. Not by a long shot:
But we have a problem: lawless, out-of-state petition circulators have been coming to South Dakota and circulating petitions in direct violation of South Dakota law. This has really happened in South Dakota, and it gets worse when we discover that they committed fraud or broke the law but the out-of-state circulators have already fled the state.
I sponsored House Bill 1094 to ensure that our initiative and referendum process will remain a grassroots process for South Dakotans. Protecting South Dakotans from law breaking out-of-state political hacks and special interests shouldn’t be controversial.
I have personally seen the complete disregard of our laws and the manipulation of our South Dakota ballot measure process by circulators from out of state. To try to “prove” residency, out-of-state circulators have fraudulently used hotel addresses to get South Dakota drivers licenses, and others with lengthy and disturbing criminal records have been flown in from Massachusetts and Washington to stand on our street corners and ask for our personal information for their petition.
and.
And when South Dakota voters sign a petition, every signer deserves to know that the petition circulator is not a sex offender panning for personal information and our home addresses. The transparency provided by HB 1094 helps keep these bad actors out of our petition process.
We need to end the stream of lawless, out-of-state special interests trying to use our state as a guinea pig for their political agendas. We need transparency — very basic information — to protect the public’s personal information from lawless, criminal circulators. HB 1094 helps accomplish these goals. That’s why the legislature supported the bill and the Governor signed it.
This year, South Dakota Democrats, particularly former 2-time Democrat State Senate candidate Cory Heidelberger has been pushing to roll back laws passed to protect South Dakotans from those who would abuse the petitioning process, declaring “So, we’re coming after them. We’re trying to stop that and restore the people’s rights.” Which if you read into it, his version of restoring people’s rights is a return to the bad old days where criminals could be imported from other states.
It’s as if he wants bad actors returned to the process.
Interestingly, if you go back to the 2012 article, Democrat State Representative Marc Feinstein made a point which appears to have been lost on the new style of socialist democrats the other side of the aisle seems to have representing the party now. As part of that debate, Feinstein had noted:
Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, voted no on both bills. He said lawmakers were unfairly singling out sex offenders rather than perhaps including all violent felons.
“I think we’re making mistakes in not including more offenders,” Feinstein said.
It really boils down to a simple question – Yes or No to handing your address off to a criminal as you stand in front of them, after being stopped and asked to sign a petition?
Because most us are ok with them having already been vetted at a higher level than guessing at their intentions and legality on a street corner.