In discussing the Aberdeen City Council’s vote Monday to support “the establishment of an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission,” I mentioned SDCL 12-27-20, which says we can’t spend tax dollars in support of ballot measures or petitions therefor, and said Aberdeen’s resolution doesn’t technically violate that law since it advocates the idea of an independent redistricting commission and not the specific ant-gerrymandering ballot measure currently being circulated by Farmers Union.
The Aberdeen American News learns that even if the resolution did explicitly back the pending petition, the council still wouldn’t be in trouble:
City Attorney Ron Wager said no money was spent or designated for the effort, so there was no violation of state law.
“Nothing in the statute prohibits the council from expressing its support for or against a political question, as long as it doesn’t spend taxpayer money in furtherance of that support,” Wager said [Elisa Sand, “Aberdeen’s Redistricting Resolution Doesn’t Conflict with State Law,” Aberdeen American News, 2015.09.17].
…at least not until the anti-gerrymandering measure makes the ballot, according to councilman and petition coordinator Mark Remily:
Remily said because the topic is not yet an official ballot measure, the city is able to voice its opinion. Had it been an official ballot measure, Remily said it’s his understanding that city officials could discuss it, but no action could be taken [Sand, 2015.09.17].
Whoops! Flag that, Mark. The statute in question refers to public expenditures for “the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question.” It applies equally before and after a ballot question’s official placement on the ballot. And we have local precedent from 2008 demonstrating that local governments are free to pass resolutions for or against ballot measures. When the Brown County Commission passed a resolution opposing Initiated Measure 10 and backers sued under SDCL 12-27-20, state and county legal eagles called, “No foul!”
Attorney General Larry Long said Wednesday he continues to believe that South Dakota law allows state and local government boards and commissions to take positions on ballot measures.
Long has advised boards and commissions to follow the state law, which prohibits spending public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. But a board vote to support or oppose a ballot measure is not a violation of state law, he said.
“If you look at the meeting and the vote and the adoption of the resolution, we didn’t find any evidence there was any expenditure of public funds,” Long said.
The only extra spending might have been publishing the resolution as part of the commission’s meeting minutes, but another state law requires the publication of those minutes, Long said. The commission should not get into trouble under one law for complying with another, he said.
The county has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit, which means the legal dispute will not be resolved before the Nov. 4 election. Brown County State’s Attorney Kimberly Dorsett told the Aberdeen American News that while the commission cannot endorse a political candidate, it can express its views on a ballot measure commissioners believe would hurt their ability to represent citizens [“Measure 10 Backers Sue Brown County,” AP via Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2008.10.23].
We may be unhappy when our elected officials take positions on ballot measures that conflict with our positions, but they appear to have the right to voice their opinion on the community’s best interests, just like private citizens.
I think it illegal for public bodies to take those votes. I think AG Long was absolutely wrong on the law.
At any official meeting you are paying tax dollars for people (officials and employees) to be there, you are using public assets, including paper, computers, lights and heat, for the amount of time you are involved in discussing and voting on the issue. Further, you are using public assets to publish meeting minutes which include any such action or resolution. Further, at some point a news person may ask an official or employee about an endorsement, and that person will be using tax dollars to pontificate about an official government position.
I think it is fine for a public body to have an educational meeting where both (or all) sides of such an issue petitioned to the ballot can be raised and addressed. I think it is unfair and illegal for an official government body to actually endorse a measure.
Pay makes good sense. Too often boards endorse a measure not because it is in the “public interest”, but in the interests of a special interests group that has wined and dined them. The XL pipeline is one such special interest. The other problems with these endorsements is that most of these boards don’t have a single person on them with education and knowledge related in any way to what they may be supporting.
So Glodt admitted they are using the out of state (illegal) petition gatherers that Angela Kennecke profiled on the news?!
Curious if Marty Jackley will go after establishment crony Glodt like he did Bosworth?