Senator Ried Holien (R-5/Watertown) is interested in reforming the petition process for ballot measures. Senate Bill 91 would add some information to the form that petition circulators are supposed to hand out when collecting signatures for initiatives and referenda. Right now, we circulators are supposed to provide every signer with a sheet containing the title and the attorney general’s explanation of the measure. SB 91 would require that form to also list the “name, phone number, and email address of each petition sponsor; and a statement whether the petition circulator is a volunteer or paid petition circulator.”
Senate Bill 91 is not as controversial as Senate Bill 95, Senator Ernie Otten’s (R-6/Tea) measure to allow candidates to buy their way onto the ballot. (Interestingly, Otten’s pay-to-play measure only applies to candidates, not ballot measures.) The additional information adds trivial expense to the printing of each sheet. Smart organizers already include contact information for their campaign committees. That information adds credibility to one’s petition pitch. I would suggest an amendment to require not just the sponsor’s or sponsors’ contact information but also the name of the committee.
SB 91 would create a minor printing complication: ballot question committees might have to print two sets of info sheets, one for paid circulators and one for volunteers. Petition sponsors might avoid that complication by simply putting checkboxes for “Paid” and “Volunteer” on each sheet and asking each circulator to check the appropriate box, but then there’s one more task that circulators need to perform while handling their clipboards (easy solution: check your boxes before you hit the street!). I might amend this requirement as well: how about requiring that circulators include their name on the information forms as well? Given the shady behavior of some circulators during the 2015 petition season and serious law enforcement questions concerning out-of-state circulators, might we not want to use Senate Bill 91 to add some accountability for circulators? We circulators ask South Dakota voters to give us their names and addresses; wouldn’t it be fair to expect us to give our names and contact information in return?
As you can see from my own suggestions, Senate Bill 91 invites all sorts of discussion and amendment about how to ensure accountability in our petition process. Watch this bill closely to make sure Republicans in the Legislature don’t slip again into partisan exuberance and turn an o.k. law into another effort to undermine democratic participation in the petition process.
How many times do you want us to write our names as circulators, Cory?? Writer’s cramp sets in at more than 5.
I would like to see each circulator list his/her sexual contact history on the handouts, as well.
I don’t see a need for the form at all. I would suggest getting rid of that process entirely. I think it is actually unconstitutional to require a form that puts on it some propaganda from the AG. It violates free speech rights. That is not to say that I don’t think circulators shouldn’t have to disclose whether they are paid or volunteer. They could do that on a badge, similar to what is required for lobbyists.
As expected, these people keep picking on the ballot measure petitioning, and don’t pay much attention to the corrupt candidate petitioning process. Why don’t we make the candidates put down there entire platform on a form and get the AG to pontificate about it, and make the candidates hand that around to each signer?
Boy, I need an editor. Not “there, but “their” in “their entire platform….”
I probably need a chaperone.
This is one of those, it sounds great in theory but in practice its excessive, and really means nothing type of things.
I’ve always thought the circulator should print his / her name on the petition before circulation. Then sign when done circulating. That way, me as joe voter, when approached by the circulator can look at the bottom and say oh Hi Cory Allen Heidelberger…
I see alot of abuse in the Sioux Falls area of circulators sharing petition sheets or leaving them in a booth for different circulators to watch..
PlanningStudent: Nothing prevents a circulator from doing just that.
Save The Trees … electronic devices can educate signers, should they be interested or not believe what the petitioner is saying.
95 directed at candidates w/wallets seems to violate equal protection maybe??
Don Good Suggestion For a Paid Badge Only.
I Like The Circulator’s Name Printed Legibly At The Top.
Shirley, see Planning Student and Donald for good ways around writers cramp. Our names on the petition or a simple badge mean no need to write our name each time. I wore my business card as a badge and kept extras ready to hand out.
Donald raises an interesting constitutional point: is the whole form an unconstitutional form of compelled speech? Circulators already have to present the full text of the initiative on the petition itself (which seems perfectly sensible: if you ask me to sign a petition to place a measure on the ballot, I have a right to see the law you’re asking me to sign for). Why require circulators to hand out text produced by an elected official that may carry a distinct political bias?
Planning, is there any chance you could name specific circulators you engaged in that illegal sharing/non-witnessing practice?
Why is sharing and non-witnessing illegal?
Review the circulator’s oath, Barry:
Circulators swear under oath that they were there when signers signed. Not being there when signers signed makes that a false statement, and false statements under oath are perjury. That’s what busted Chad Haber and Annette Bosworth.
That form is unconstitutional in so many ways: government compelling speech, interference by government into petitioning for redress of grievances, and government interference in the initiative process that goes far beyond what the SD constitution allows. I wish someone would file suit against it.
Funny, Donald—the payday lenders sued the AG over his explanation, but they were trying to compel him to engage in different speech that would favor their point of view. I take it any circulator would have standing to bring the suit you’re talking about, right, since every circulator is compelled to make such speech?