Well, nuts. It looks like this year all the crummy ballot questions are qualifying while most of the good ones aren’t.
Secretary of State Shantel Krebs yesterday rejected the voting-by-mail initiative petition put forward by Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson of TakeItBack.org in Sioux Falls. While Weiland and Samuelson reported submitting 19,850 signatures, Secretary Krebs reported the petition contained only 15,718 signatures. She sampled 703 signatures and apparently found 490 valid. By that 30.30% error rate, Secretary Krebs calculates that the petition had only 10,955 valid signatures, 78.98% of the 13,871 necessary to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.
Something strange happened here. On the five other petitions reviewed this cycle, the Secretary’s actual signature count varied from the sponsor’s estimate by no more than 1.2%. The Secretary’s count on the vote-by-mail petition is 20.8% lower than the sponsor’s estimate. This low count may be connected with the anomalously high “sheet efficiency” that I calculated last November for this petition.
But check this out: even if Rick and Drey’s count had been accurate, 69.70% of 19,850 signatures is still only 13,835 signatures, 36 below the qualifying threshold.
Voting by mail joins independent redistricting (also backed by TakeItBack.org) and open primaries in failing to make the 2018 ballot. As it stands, the only good thing we get to vote on is Amendment W, IM 22 2.0. IM 24 and 25 and Amendments Y and Z all come from G. Mark Mickelson. IM 25 (the tobacco tax for vo-techs) and Amendment Y (Marsy’s Fix) might actually be good policies, but since they come from Mickelson, voting for them will make me feel yucky. Amendment X (55% vote threshold for constitutional amendments) and Amendment Z (single-subject rule for amendments) are part of the Mickelson/Republican attack on initiative, so neither does the state any outweighing good.
TakeItBack.org has one petition left for Krebs to review, the prescription drug price cap. By the sponsor’s count of 22,481 signatures submitted, that petition can afford a 38.30% error rate. The medical marijuana petition also awaits review; with 14,950 sponsor-counted signatures, it can afford a 7.22% error rate. The six petitions reviewed so far have seen a 25.32% error rate.
We thus have one measure (Amendment Y) on the June ballot and five measures (Amendments W, X, and Z, IM 24 and 25) on the November ballot. The drug price cap could become IM 26 on the November ballot, giving us six November ballot questions and seven for the entire year.
I’m troubled by this. Stringent rules, regulations, restrictions, and requirements are imposed on citizens who dare to carry pens and clipboards in public Then the petitions they submit are scrutinized with a magnifying glass, but only those signatures chosen at random. Luck of the draw may determine whether our efforts result in a ballot question being to submitted to the voters.
The legislature believes that all wisdom and knowledge continue to be their exclusive domain. I’ll wager that a random sample would find that not to be the case.
So Cory, you’re saying the Vote by Mail petition had many sheets with empty signature lines? So the number of sheets turned in didn’t translate directly into numbers of signatures?
It’s too bad that one didn’t make it since it’s shown to boost participation in government. Of course the legislature could enact such a law, but the GOP stands firmly opposed to a participatory electorate in this republic. It’s bad for graft and gift and groping.
Cory’s suggestion to sue over the legislature’s/governor’s/attorney general’s restrictions of the constitutional right to initiate/refer laws was tried in Arkansas. https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/10/10/lawsuit-filed-over-new-restrictions-on-initiative-process
add “/Secretary of State’s”
Debbo, I’m not sure what the discrepancy was. Neither the sponsor’s count nor the Secretary’s count should include empty lines. The SOS counts every filled line. ARSD 05:02:08:00.05(4)(d) excludes blank or crossed out lines from the random sample.
So SOS Krebs couldn’t have sampled Line 14 from Sheet 654 if Sheet 654 only had markings on Lines 1 & 2. Empty signature lines should have no effect on the random sample and the calculated number of valid signatures.