Ballot Question Forum: Cameraman Bruce Shares Video of CAH on 19 and 20

That Sioux Falls paper has done voters the favor of archiving its livestream of Thursday’s statewide ballot question forum. That video features, in order:

  1. [17:30] Amendment T—end gerrymandering with independent redistricting: Matt Sibley, SD Farmers Union, in favor; Rep. Jim Stalzer (R-11/Sioux Falls) against.
  2. [48:20] Initiated Measure 22—real 36% rate cap on payday loans: Steve Hildebrand, SF café owner, for.
  3. [1:07:15] Amendment U—unlimited payday loan interest disguised as fake 18% rate cap: Steve Hildebrand, against.
  4. [1:28:10] Amendment V—open nonpartisan primary: Rick Knobe, radio host, for; Will Mortenson, Republican activist, against.
  5. [1:57:05] Referred Law 19—Incumbent Protection Plan: Cory Allen Heidelberger, against.
  6. [2:11:30] Referred Law 20—youth minimum wage: Cory Allen Heidelberger, against.
  7. [2:28:40] Amendment S—crime victims bill of rights: Jason Glodt, lawyer, for; Ryan Kolbeck, lawyer, against.
  8. [2:49:20] Initiated Measure 22—Anti-Corruption Act: Darrell Solberg, business owner, for; Ben Lee, paid Koch Brothers/Americans for Progress propagandist, against.

That Sioux Falls paper’s video is complete, but is also a bit fuzzy and marked up. Cameraman Bruce Danielson was on scene as well and captured a little clearer video of my presentations on Referred Law 19 and Referred Law 20. Cameraman Bruce does moderator Sarah Jennings and the rest of us the favor of capturing her face on Camera #2 instead of that Sioux Falls paper’s steady rear shot. Cameraman Bruce can do nothing to change the fact that, even seated, I wave my arms with great enthusiasm any time I speak.

Share those videos, help your neighbors learn about the ballot measures… and get ready to vote, starting Friday, when your county auditor will have ballots for early voting available!


13 Responses to Ballot Question Forum: Cameraman Bruce Shares Video of CAH on 19 and 20

  1. You look very good in a regular suit and tie instead of a bow tie and vest, Mr. H.

  2. Increase the period for gathering signatures (Nov 1-Apr 1) and increase the minimum needed. Require SOS to post all submitted petitions online. Nothing wrong with your gestures while speaking. Some of us wish we were so expressive orally and physically.

  3. Gurdz, you’ve never seen me in a bow tie.

  4. Stace, I can’t believe anyone wants to circulate petitions a full year before the election. I’m fine with January 1. Let’s extend the circulation period the other direction by postponing the primary until first Tuesday in August.

    And what compelling interest does the state have in increasing the number of signatures required to run for office?

  5. Mr. H, I have often imagined it.

  6. OUTSTANDING job Cory!

    God have mercy on the poor soul who might one day show up to argue against you on issues like destroying [fact] Independent voters ability to get candidates on the ballot. The ‘Good Old Boys’ screwed up BIG TIME when they put Refered Law 19 together. It’s a hardcore attack on Independent voters. Why did they have to go after Independent voters like that? It’s wrong and warrants public shaming! If they could, seem SDGOP would pass legislation to remove the right to vote for everyone but Republicans.

  7. @CAH You misunderstand, Nov1-Apr1 = 5 months. 50 signatures is not enough for the two major parties. If someone wants to run as a candidate for that party? They should have to post a lot more.

  8. I thought Mr. H was for this attack on candidates, not against it. It seems odd he is against candidates of any ilk.

  9. Stace, I meant that circulating petitions a full year before the election is far too early to begin. We really shouldn’t have to start circulating until after the Legislature adjourns and we can see the full picture of what the Legislature has wrought and whether we feel like we need to change things in Pierre. Legislators could benefit, too: let them focus on Session, get done, go home, decompress, and then decide whether they want to serve the public again in that capacity.

    Why isn’t 50 signatures enough for legislative candidates? Isn’t that fairly proportional to what we expect of statewide candidates? What interest is served by making it harder for anyone to run for office?

    Grudz, your last comment there confuses me. Please clarify.

  10. @CAH Not too soon for the primary in June. I only support more signatures for the two major parties. I think they should have a say in who runs under their banners. Independents I would have no problem them having the ability to simply declare for office for the November general election. Requiring the major party candidates to get an actual sampling of registered voters from throughout the districts they want to represent increases the ability of the voters to communicate their concerns to their perspective elected officials. Otherwise all we have are dishonest candidates ginning up fake newspapers to fake endorsements of party groups that don’t exist.

  11. Cory, you do a good job of explaining the amendments and your positions on them. It ‘s just too bad that so many So Dakotans will side with the GOP on them without really studying them. So Dakota needs to erase their partisan tendencies when voting on these.

  12. But South Dakotans in general don’t necessarily do that, Jenny! Remember, we won the minimum wage hike in 2014. We beat back merit pay and corporate welfare in 2012. A lot of voters do a fair job of seeing through GOP bushwah on ballot measures. It’s when we turn to candidates that the bushwah sticks better.

  13. Stace, are higher signature counts really the best way to keep dishonest candidates out? Look at ballot measures: the most dishonest ballot question committee and most dishonest sponsor, Lisa Furlong for Amendment U, was able to collect the most signatures. Isn’t a better check on dishonest candidates keeping the door open for more honest candidates to run and challenge them?