Vote Now! DFP Poll on Referred Law 19, the Incumbent Protection Act!

More polling! Let’s hear what you, dear readers, think of Referred Law 19, the election/petition reform bill that I have labeled the Incumbent Protection Act. As I explained in yesterday’s post on the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce’s incomplete brief on the bill, Referred Law 19 makes a big basket of changes to the arcane technicalities of South Dakota’s candidate petition and election laws. Following are the key provisions:

  1. The nominating petition circulation period moves one month earlier, from January 1 through the last Tuesday of March to December 1 through the first Tuesday in March.
  2. Major-party candidates must gather more signatures to qualify for the ballot.
  3. Voters registered as members of recognized political parties lose their right to sign petitions for independent candidates.
  4. Parties can replace withdrawn candidates on the ballot only if candidates withdraw for legally authorized reasons.
  5. Petitions sent by registered mail by the petition deadline but not received until after the deadline will no longer be accepted.

A “YES” vote means you want these changes to take place. A “NO” vote means you reject these changes and want to keep petition and election law the way it is.

Attentive readers know there are plenty of reasons to oppose all of these increased barriers to the ballot. The best response the Republican authors of Referred Law 19 (originally 2015 Senate Bill 69) have been able to offer is that Republicans wrote it and passed it, so everyone should vote for it.

We’ll keep this poll open until breakfast time Wednesday, at which time we’ll talk about the results. Vote now, and bring your friends!


14 Responses to Vote Now! DFP Poll on Referred Law 19, the Incumbent Protection Act!

  1. Not that I’m registered to vote in South Dakota, but 1-4 I understand, or don’t think are that big of a deal, but #5 seems like a problem waiting to happen. It takes some peoples petitions a day or 2 to get to Pierre and others 5-7 days to magically be opened. You could just change it and say that petitions must be turned in by hand.

  2. Joe, eliminating the mail option completely still leaves candidates at a disadvantage. But saying no mail at all is unfair to non-procrastinating candidates who are willing to start circulating early but just don’t have the time or money to drive all the way from Vermillion or Hermosa or Wilmot or Camp Crook to Pierre to hand in their petitions.

    I understand the motivation for provision #5—wanting to ensure all petitions are in by a definite time so the SOS can schedule workers to guarantee review of all petitions in time for a fair challenge window. But only a handful of petitions come in late by mail, representing only a minor burden on the work flow. If we want to ensure a reasonable challenge period on all petitions, we could move the petition submission deadline to the end of April and the primary to August or even the day after Labor Day (which would ensure great State Fair debates!).

  3. Republicans look down their noses at elections as that nasty piece of business they must endure before continuing their exploitation of our economy and our taxes. Of course, they want to tighten up the leash on the election process by making it harder for the party out of power to compete with fewer resources and a dwindling base of voters and donors. What did you expect?

    On the other side, I must say the Democratic Party in South Dakota has lacked the commitment and intelligence to increase their standing in the legislature or any of the 12 statewide elected offices that are available. [The party does have candidates onboard like Reynold Nesiba, Cory Heidelberger and Mike Saba who would dramatically increase the quality of discourse in the legislature if they are elected. Maybe there is something to build on after November.]

    I strongly support the progressive measures on this year’s ballot as well as the Hildebrand-Hickey measure to rid our people of loan sharks. If, indeed, there was a competent state Democratic Party organization, somebody could have stepped in as the traffic cop and shake some common sense into those behind the election reform measures. South Dakotans are very suspicious of change. Common sense would dictate that you could run one of those governance reform measures at a time and stand a far better chance of winning than if you ran all of them at once, including public financing of campaigns which requires an awful lot more education of the electorate than anybody has the time, personnel and money to muster.

    Frankly, this was a wasted cycle. At State Fair, all I heard from folks was there are too many ballot issues to consider. I predict all of these ballot issues will fail. It’s too confusing and a whole lot more bother than what people are willing to tolerate. They will either skip over all of them, or vote no to all of them.

    The redistricting measure should have been the only one of these governance measures on the ballot. It has a winnable argument if people care to know what it’s about. I’m sure polling would show people support it, as with some of the other measures. But answering a poll and what folks will do at the polls on a Sears catalog list of ballot measures are very different circumstances.

    At this late point, the Republican Party network seems to be the only ones operating a smart strategy. If we want to redeem anything meaningful, we need to choose one ballot issue and put the volunteer work to make it happen. As it is now, progressives have bitten off far much more than they can manage.

    The most meaningful issue that affects regular folks is the anti-loan shark measure. It would send a big national message that South Dakota will set standards on how lending institutions treat their clients. It will protect families from predators who run pay day loan operations in every sizeable town in our state. As for the governance reform measures, the smart thing to do is save the money and go back to the drawing board for the 2018 election. Make one smart choice and save the other measures for victories in 2020 and 2022.

    That is a better option than losing 100 percent of the meaningful ballot issues.

  4. I have voted NO in your poll more than 5 times now, Mr. H. I just wanted to make sure my vote was sticking.

  5. mike from iowa

    Grudz, Phyllis Schlafly is being introduced to the devil as we speak. Your side lost another cultural warrior in the effort to keep ‘murrica white and rethuglican.

    I know we aren’t supposed to say anything about people if we can’t say something nice. In this instance, there isn’t anything nice to say about her,except buh-bye.

  6. Mr. Mike, you know I’m not from Iowa, like you, which is probably why I haven’t the faintest idea about what you are muttering. I’m from South Dakota, Mike

  7. mike from iowa

    Still use Pony Express?

  8. mfi, I enjoyed travelling across your state a few times this summer, but only for a moment got to stand out in a cornfield at midnight and embrace the power coming up from the roots of your earth. Saw some meteors. Dark, dark,
    dark but the field just seemed alive with energy. grudz likely wouldn’t understand because he is from red-necked South Dakota, is white, republican and still clings to outmoded thought process. and

    it takes us awhile to catch up with your progressive intelligence and we deeply appreciate it! I understand north eastern iowa, and near Omaha and council bluffs, is alive with a progressive music scene. and liberal voters!!

    cory please neutralize grudz’ illegitimate over-votes for mine in favor. thx

  9. Ror: aren’t Weiland and Farmers Union waging a sufficient push for their separate ballot measures?

    And if 2016 looked like a critical election year, can you blame sponsors for striking while the iron is hot instead of waiting to do reforms one at a time over a period of six to ten years?

  10. Grudz, how terribly uncivil to vote more than once via different IPs. I’d rather not put more cookies on your computer. Please respect the process.

  11. mike from iowa

    Thank you. leslie. Don’t know about progressive intelligence, but viewing meteors away from big city lights is certainly doable and enjoyable. We even have our own Indian culture close by.

    Bonnie and Clyde spent more nights hiding out in Obrien County than Grudz and they voted way less often. :)

  12. Robin Friday

    I see no reason at all why incumbents should be “protected”. They should protect their jobs by DOING their jobs, stop the gerrymandering and act like adults instead of partisans and and being led around by the nose by the Far Christian Right.

  13. Kim Wright

    This is one of the most ridiculous bills to ever come out of committee and then be supported by the Republican majority…..I sincerely hope that voters will understand that current legislators are completely limiting voter choices in the election process and democracy.

  14. Kim, I spoke with a couple members of the final conference committee the day they passed the final version of SB 69. Those Republicans seemed oblivious to the ridiculousness and unconstitutionality of what they had written.