Either Lee Strubinger isn’t working very hard, or no one is willing to stand up this year and defend Referred Law 19, the Incumbent Protection Plan.
The SDPB reporter interviewed me three weeks ago about Referred Laws 19 and 20. On RL 20, he was able to get hapless sponsor Senator David Novstrup (the man I will replace in the 2017 Legislature) to repeat his feckless wishful thinking that cutting wages gives kids more opportunity. But on RL 19, Strubinger couldn’t find any proponents. To balance my critique of RL 19 as an unconstitutional effort to keep independents off the ballot, Strubinger had to go back to the January 28, 2015, Senate State Affair Committee hearing on Senate Bill 69—the bill that became Referred Law 19—and pull the audio of Senator Corey Brown rationalizing his partisan hijack of SB 69 as a way to “make the process equal”:
“I as a Republican candidate am only allowed to get Republican signatures on a petition,” Brown says. “The same for Senator Sutton as a Democrat is only really allowed to get Democrats to sign on to a petition. What this amendment is intended to do is to say if there are Independent candidates then they shall get their signatures from Independents and not Republicans and Democrats” [Lee Strubinger, “Referred Law 19’s Intent Is to Clarify Election Petitioning Process,” SDPB Radio, 2016.08.15].
I don’t know if Senator Brown still labors under this misconception, but he sold his amendment to the Legislature with the fallacy of treating independents like a political party. Independents do not constitute a political party. Treating them like a political party undermines their very reason for existing: dissatisfaction with existing political parties.
Partisan candidates are very different creatures from independent candidates. Partisan candidates have county, state, and national political organizations that give partisan candidates enormous advantages in getting on the ballot, raising money, knocking on doors, and winning elections. Those enormous advantages far outweigh the minor concession South Dakota petition law grants to independents by allowing them to gather signatures from any registered voter. Even that concession comes grudgingly: statewide independent candidates have to gather more signatures than their Republican and Demcoratic counterparts combined.
Being independent is tough enough; Referred Law 19 only makes it tougher. Take the new silence from the other side (the partisan side, the Republican legislators who voted for it in 2015) as one more sign that you should vote NO on Referred Law 19.
p.s.: Strubinger made a significant error in his summary of the referendum. He says, “A yes vote in November would mean the state law stays in place, whereas a no vote cancels the law.” Actually, a YES vote changes state election law to impose the new burdens on independents and other candidates larded onto RL 19 by Brown and his friends. A NO vote stops RL 19’s changes from taking effect and keeps state election law the way it is, imperfect, but better than what Brown tried to do to it.
Right now to get on the ballot, Independents need to get as many signatures as Republicans and Democrats combined. To run for the legislature the most signatures a party candidate needs is capped at 50. Independents need 1% of the total vote for governor in their district to run for the legislature, which means up to 195 signatures in District 1, and far more than 50 signatures in most districts. Same for statewide races. Independents need as many signatures as Republicans and Democrats combined. If Corey Brown really wanted to treat Independents like a party, he should change the law to say that independent candidates need signatures equaling 1% of votes the independent candidate got in the last governor’s race.
As to your PS. The yes vs no on RL’s has been difficult for a lot of people to understand when they ask me about them. I wonder how many people will accidentally vote the opposite of what they mean on RL 19 and RL 20.
Ror—bingo. RL 19 isn’t an effort to treat Indies fairly. RL 19 treats Indies as the enemy of parties.
Ken, you’re right: Yes/No get confusing on referenda. If “if in doubt, vote No” holds sway, then confusion serves my goals. Even so, we must all work hard to give absolutely clear and concise explanations. Lee’s concise closing gets it wrong: one could just as easily say what the AG says: “YES” adopts the proposed changes; “NO” leaves election law as it is.
It’s a bad law. Needs to die on the ballot
Thanks, Lee! When Neal Tapio gets Trump to come make a speech in Watertown, tell him to get Trump to endorse NO on 19! :-)
Thanks for pointing out that voting NO on RL19 will return elections to the status quo–still unfair to independents! Voting Yes on V should resolve the issue and offer political reform!