My friends at the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry have sent out a preview of circulating and pending ballot measures to their members in their Venture Capitol newsletter. Alas, the Chamber doesn’t post the new newsletters online, but a friend of business and public policy shares with me the Chamber’s summary of House Bill 1094 and my effort to refer and repeal that burdensome bureaucracy. Alas (again! Is there a form of alas to use when two distinct and regrettable things happen in sequence?), the Chamber mistakes the scope of HB 1094, which it says creates “regulations for people paid to gather signatures for petitions”:
HB 1094 established requirements for people circulating petitions including wearing name tags for anyone who is paid to gather signatures. This petition would suspend that law and place it on the general election ballot for 2020 [South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry, “Update on Potential Ballot Measures for the 2020 Election,” Venture Capitol, 2019.05.28; received by Dakota Free Press 2019.05.29].
As a public service to all my friends in business, I correct and clarify the Chamber’s explanation of HB 1094.
- HB 1094 creates new regulations for all ballot question petition circulators, volunteer and paid.
- HB 1094 does not create name tags for circulators; HB 1094 Section 7 says the badges HB 1094 mandates “may not state the name of the petition circulator.”
- HB 1094 requires that all petition circulators, volunteer and paid, apply for, wait for, and wear state-issued badges. HB 1094 Section 7 requires that the state print the following text on each circulator badge:
- the words “petition circulator”;
- the identity of the ballot question committee on behalf of which the petition circulator is registered;
- the circulator identification number;
- the circulator’s status: “volunteer” or “paid”.
- Prior to collecting any signatures, all circulators, volunteer and paid, must submit the following information to a public registry:
- circulator’s name;
- statement that the circulator is at least eighteen years of age;
- physical address of current residence;
- physical address of prior residence if current residence is less than one year;
- email address;
- phone number;
- state of issuance for driver license;
- state of voter registration;
- occupation;
- the ballot question committee supporting the ballot measure;
- whether the petition circulator will be volunteer or paid;
- whether the petition circulator is a registered sex offender.
- All circulators, volunteer and paid, must repeat this application process for each petition they carry.
- All circulators, volunteer and paid, must wear a unique badge for each petition they carry (carry two petitions, wear two badges).
- Any person who “acts as a petition circulator without wearing a badge” commits a Class 2 misdemeanor, meaning that person could pay a $500 fine and sit in jail for 30 days.
- HB 1094 defines “petition circulator” as anyone who circulates ballot question petitions “or solicits petition signatures from members of the public…,” which an ambitious attorney general could read to mean anyone who urges you to sign a petition, regardless of whether that person has a petition in hand.
- The only distinction HB 1094 makes between volunteer and paid circulators is that, in addition to all of the above requirements and threats, HB 1094 demands a $20 registration fee from any paid circulator.
HB 1094 is a big bureaucratic mess, far more extensive, intrusive, and unfair than the Chamber’s brief summary suggests.
Earlier this month, Chamber honcho David Owen declined to sign my petition to refer HB 1094 to a vote. Perhaps the Chamber’s scanty explanation of HB 1094 indicates that Owen and the Chamber didn’t actually realize how deeply HB 1094 cuts into the petition process and stifles the voice of volunteer, grassroots South Dakotans. I hope the above explanation will inspire Chamber members around the state to sign and circulate the petition to refer thus burdensome badge and registry requirement and protect their right to bring matters of importance to the business community to a vote of the people.
Name badges for pushers of the measures initiated are a really good idea.
Grudz, just to make sure my point got across, you understand that HB 1094 does not mandate “name badges”, right? You are advocating a separate policy, right?
The law is unconstitutional, under both South Dakota and US Constitutions.
Like Grudz, I have no problem with circulator badges. I don’t think they should be mandated, because the Constitution does not have a clause that requires you to wear a badge to petition your government for redress of grievances. Clearly, anything like that and all the other bureaucracy is not just ridiculous overreach, but totally unconstitutional. I have a problem with requiring the unconstitutional bullsh^t tjat Cory describes above. Imagine if the signers of the Declaration of Independence had to go through that nonsense to petition the King. We would be debating Brexit, not impeachment.
People should identify themselves as they collect petition signatures. It’s the polite thing to do. I always said something like, “We are South Dakota citizen with an initiative petition to keep garbage out of South Dakota. Will you sign?” Most people in Rapid, where I did most of my petitioning, knew who I was. I was on the news all the time. In case they didn’t, I would say, “Thanks, for signing,” shake their hand and say “I’m Donald Pay, by the way.” When I ran for school board, everyone knew me from my petitioning. Most of our core group of circulators were well known in their communities. That is the benefit of doing grassroots organizing over a couple decades. You get people who are leaders in their communities as volunteer in-state circulators who do it without being paid a dime.
Chamber advocates are often not the brightest lights on the string.
Chamber advocates are often not the brightest lights on the string.
I am OK with two badges, Mr. H. One that says “Mr. grudznick” and another that says “Circulator Extraordinaire”
I am OK with two badges, Mr. H. One that says “Mr. grudznick” and another that says “Circulator Extraordinaire”
I think the second word you are looking for is “alack” as in “Alack and alas!”
And alas and alack! the SD C of C doesn’t seem to understand the huge scope of this.
Cory has a point about the issue brief for HB 1094 being a bit too brief.
The purpose of the article in our newsletter was to provide members with an awareness that the petition process has begun a new cycle and show the topics that are being prepared for the ballot next year.
It was not meant to provide an in-depth analysis of each issue. The Chamber did not support, nor did we oppose HB 1094 – so my my overview was too short and missed the mark.
We do post issues of our writings on the website, this had simply not been done yet. This issue of “Venture Capitol” has been posted on the Chamber’s website http://www.sdchamber.biz and is available under the tab marked newsletters. We have added a link to Cory’s story here for members that would like a more detailed explanation.
We await with bated breath your milquetoast explanation, David.
Thank you , Mr. Owen, for updating us and your members! Dakota Free Press is always happy to help our business community make more informed decisions.