Last updated on 2018-12-25
My two-word revision of my proposed petition reform initiative has given Attorney General Marty Jackley the opportunity to provide a far larger revision of his official explanation.
The two words I struck from Section 8 of my proposed initiatives (actually, two words of existing statute that I struck in Version 1 to the A.G. but put back in Version 2) required one change in A.G. Jackley’s explanation, the removal of these fifteen words: “It eliminates the Attorney General’s deadline for filing an explanation for these types of measures.” Interestingly, A.G. Jackley took this opportunity to strike another 31 words from his November explanation and add or reword 50 words. With some attentive editing, A.G. Jackley has kept his explanation at the statutory maximum of 200 words.
I mark Jackley’s strikes from the November version in italics and his significant new verbage in the December version in bold. I include my explanation, which remains unchanged:
| AG 1—November | AG 2—December | CAH |
| This measure eliminates some information a ballot measure petition circulator must provide to a petition signer, including the circulator’s contact information and a statement whether the circulator is paid.
Additionally, the measure eliminates the law barring individuals from sponsoring or circulating petitions for four years if they have committed multiple petition-law violations. It changes fiscal note requirements for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments, and removes fiscal notes from the ballot for these By law, the Attorney General must write a title and an explanation for each initiated measure and initiated amendment. This proposal decreases the time in which the Attorney General must file the title. It eliminates the Attorney General’s deadline for filing an explanation for these types of measures. Current law requires sponsors to file signed initiative petitions with the Secretary of State at least one year prior to the general election. The measure changes this deadline to four months prior. Under this measure, most voter-approved ballot measures would take effect the day after the official vote canvass rather than the following July 1 as the law currently states. The measure repeals the statute that prohibits an initiated measure from embracing more than one subject. |
This measure changes and repeals laws regarding ballot measures. It eliminates some information a petition circulator must provide to a petition signer, including circulator contact information and a statement whether the circulator is paid. It eliminates the requirement that sponsors submit circulator residency information.It repeals the law barring individuals from sponsoring or circulating petitions for four years if they have committed multiple petition-law violations.
It repeals the law extending the Legislative Research Council’s deadline for reviewing initiated measures received during legislative session. It changes fiscal note requirements for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments, and removes fiscal notes from the ballot for these types of measures. It decreases the time in which the Attorney General must file a title and explanation for initiated measures and initiated amendments. It repeals the law prohibiting an initiated measure from embracing more than one subject. Currently, sponsors must file signed initiative petitions with the Secretary of State at least one year prior to the general election. The measure Under this measure, most voter-approved ballot measures would take effect the day after the official vote canvass, rather than the following July 1 as |
Sections 1-3 stop forcing circulators to hand out personal contact and pay information while still requiring that circulators make available contact information about their petition’s sponsors.
Sections 1-3 allow circulators to provide required petition information in print or electronic format. Sections 1-2 allow petitioners eight more months to obtain voter signatures on initiative petitions. Section 4 allows voter-approved measures to take effect one week after the vote but allows voters to approve later enactment dates. Section 5 stops forcing citizens to give the state personal information and documents to exercise their right to petition. Section 6 removes additional fines and potentially unconstitutional restrictions on petition rights. Section 7 allows the Legislative Research Council to write more detailed fiscal notes and requires the LRC to provide this guidance in 15 days rather than 60. Section 8 requires the Attorney General to explain initiatives in 15 days rather than 60 and shortens ballots by removing the fiscal note. Section 9 removes a four-month delay, added in 2018, from LRC review of initiatives. Section 10 repeals the single-subject rule for initiated measures. Section 11 removes a reference to a statute repealed by Section 9. |
| 200 words | 200 words | 191 words |
While A.G. Jackley found reason to significantly revise his explanation, I do not. My explanation is shorter, sequential, more detailed, and more comprehensive. Jackley still leaves out the specific timeframe for AG explanations (15 days instead of 60) and the LRC review delay (four months in statute, not just during Session, a delay this proposed initiative would end). His second explanation still ignores the provision allowing circulators to hand out information in paper or electronic form. This second explanation still does not explain that the “changes” to fiscal note requirements allow the LRC to give the public more detailed fiscal analysis by striking the absurd 50-word limit. And he fails to explain that this proposed initiative would give voters the chance to approve enactment dates later than the official canvass date.
But Attorney General Jackley did us all a service by drafting and publishing this explanation less than two weeks after receiving my revision. He could have sat on this draft for the full 60 days statute allows him to cogitate over his initiative explanations, and then the duty to write the explanation would have fallen to our incoming Attorney General, who would have had to ask his new chief of staff how to spell “initiative.”
Now I need to ask Secretary of State Krebs what size font I have to use on the petition….
Stop arguing with The Man, Mr. H.
Seems to me your hope is to make it so out of state, certain groups with nefarious people and so on can do ballot initiatives correct? If someone committed multiple violations why should they be allowed?
Voters approved a one subject initiative.
Why drop 1 year to 4 months? Seems the only explanation is so a crap initiative could sneak by due to lack of time to really evaluate.
Looks like this just shows the Left tries s#$#% ways to get laws they want.
Prickly PEARson speaks to his own nefarious people. True that.
Wow, that was a good one. More comments on BS instead of actually addressing the issue. Good job Jerry.
Really Corey. I ask you. Let’s focus on the part that deals with those who have multiple infractions regarding petition collection. Why do you take that off? If someone does petition collection against the rule of law and has been hit for more than one offense then why do you allow them free nilly? Why?
BS is you Prickly PEARson. Good news for you though!! The nefarious folks are in the Mueller barrel now.
Here it is on Cohen, nefarious, damn straight!! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FF9-6bM5U_EvklRVj9Hyxeo6C2vzFYgq/view
Thanks for the link, Jerry. Cohen could be getting serious prison time. In other good news, OldSnockerdoodle’s white supremacist killer from Charlottesville got convicted of murder in the 1st degree for slamming car into crowd.
The thing is, Cory doesn’t spell his name with an “e”.
Why can’t adults understand that?
President Trump tweets to declare he was cleared by filings that named him as unindicted co-conspirator.
In Cohen case.
Hit out of the park, Roger! Thank you.
Cory, never give them a second bite of the apple:) The “law…repealing the law ” verbiage is intended to instill fear in voters against unwanted change, of course.
what Were The Two Words, BTW?
Grdz- question authority. 40 seats in the house, 7 governors, hundreds of state offices. Mueller. Impeachment. Why do you think jason sarge pearson ect are here to distract DFP?
Damn the man. The establishment. You.
I think the legislature should pass a law requiring the person signing a petition to show an ID proving they live in SD.
If they have no ID one will be provided to them by the State at no charge.
If they have no ID one will be provided to them by the State at no charge.
Does that include the ones from out of state, as well, Troll?
An ID will not be provided to non-residents. The reason is they don’t live here and are not eligible to sign a petition.
The Iowa education system fails again.
Jason, Republicans allow people to vote in SD who have no contact with the state except one night’s stay in their camper. They can buy license plates. They can get a mailbox. They may never return but do their business with the Auditor by mail. The Auditor brags about it in the local news. I believe this is correct. Dist 30 is gerrymandered so 3000 republican votes get dumped in by America’s Mailbox out on the interstate. I think the boundaries are 10 miles long yet very narrow. Those 3000 voters likely know nothing about local candidates or issues.
Leslie,
Are the people you are referring to voting and claiming residency in other States?
Are you saying people who live in campers shouldn’t get to vote?
I suppose you are next going to say that homeless people shouldn’t get to vote.
I have yet to hear Cory advocate the denial of voting rights of homeless people and doubt I ever will.
One year to four months: the point of that provision is to give citizens more opportunity to meaningfully participate in government and check the failures and excesses of the Legislature.
We allow citizens to refer laws passed by the Legislature in an election year to a vote in that election year, with petitions due by the end of June. It makes sense to allow citizens the same right to circulate petitions to put to a vote measures that the Legislature failed to pass or that the Governor vetoed. There is no practical reason the Secretary of State can’t process initiative petitions right alongside those election-year referendum petitions.
When we require that petitions be submitted a year before the election, we also deny petitioners the chance wait for the election-year Legislature to take up the issue. It is entirely possible that legislators in 2020 might take up reforms that would alleviate the concerns of people starting to petition right now and obviate the need for a costly ballot question campaign. It is also possible that concerned citizens could submit a petition like this one in November 2019 intended to check the power of a dysfunctional Legislature, only to see the Legislature convene in 2020, after the petition is filed but before the election, to pass bills that would sabotage the initiative, writing separate statutes that the filed petition does not and cannot address.
What’s wrong, Steve, don’t you support allowing citizens to have some political check on big government?
Steve, we already have laws making various petition violations a crime. We can already punish those sponsors. We don’t need more laws; we just need to enforce the laws we had (and which worked fine) before the Legislature went ape with that new provision last year.
Before that new law you cite, part of the oppressive 2018 HB 1196 passed last year in an effort to kill initiative and referendum with more bureaucracy and vague legal threats, South Dakota rarely if ever prosecuted anyone for the violations the new statute you’re trying to defend would further punish. We should try enforcing the old penalties before creating new ones.
Besides, if sponsors do violate pre-1196 law, their prospects for leading further ballot measures will be severely harmed by the bad press that I will give them when they try circulating their future measures. Voters disgust at such shady practices should be sufficient punishment.
My proposed initiative is about getting rid of unnecessary laws and intrusive government.
I’ve asked circulators to show me ID in the past. When they refuse, I refuse to sign. Problem solved, no law needed.
The four-month deadline would also allow more responsive, targeted ballot measures and less ballot clutter. Consider that my proposed initiative does not repeal every section of 2018 HB 1196, but it does strike odious changes from 1196 and 2018 HB 1177 that appear in the same section of current law. My only option in 2018 would have been to refer each of those laws separately, which would have put two measures on the ballot, opening the door to more voter confusion, and would have repealed little bits of HB 1196 that do not offend. If I could have placed this initiative on the ballot in 2018, we could have fixed the problem sooner and in a clearer, more targeted fashion.
As Donald Pay says, let’s just scrape off the past (?) years of SDGOP interference and go back to the Original Intent.