The Pierre Capital Journal reported last week on Dan Ahlers’s just-launched petition drive to repeal gerrymandering and empanel and independent commission to draw fair Legislative election maps in South Dakota—hooray for the press following up on its professed interest in educating the public about ballot measures!
Alas, the Capital Journal miseducates eager volunteers about how to comply with the state’s draconian circulator affidavitry, incorrectly telling circulators to send their residency affidavits to the state:
As for individual circulators of the petition, each initiative petition contains a mandatory circulator affidavit. The circulator is required to sign these affidavits before a public notary and send these statements to the Secretary of State. They must swear to and sign a statement, under penalty of law, that they personally witnessed every act of signing the petition [Del Bartels, “Former State Rep Files Petition to Have a Commission Establish Legislative Boundaries,” Pierre Capital Journal, 2019.08.27].
No, no, no! Petition circulators send nothing to the state! Petition circulators swear to their South Dakota residency on two (two! oh, the redundancy! the paperwork!) different papers: the petition sheet or sheets on which they collect voter signatures and the new, intrusive, and impossible-to-comply-with residency affidavit. See, for example, the circulator’s oath at the bottom of the SD Voice People Power Petition and the affidavit my People Power Petitioners use:
Circulators sign a residency oath on each petition sheet, but then the petition sheet itself has to go to the petition sponsor, because the petition sponsor must submit all petition sheets from all circulators together, in one box, to the Secretary of State.
The circulator residency affidavit includes a whole separate oath that the sponsor must sign, for each circulator. The sponsor then must submit those doubly sworn affidavits to the Secretary of State with the petition. Anything circulators send to the Secretary of State directly does not count as part of the petition!
As any of my People Power Petitioners who are trying to explain this process to voters will tell you—and as Dan Ahlers and other petitioners trying to comply with this redundant and convoluted paperwork and bureaucracy will tell you—the petition process is hard enough. We don’t need the media making it worse by getting the facts wrong and telling circulators to do things that will spoil their petitions.
That’s one of the things about news media. They never, ever, get the story entirely right.
I think “the media” tries to get the story right, but the new requirements are so convoluted that very few people can figure it out. An example of Republican “top-down, command and control” governance run amok. The information on circulating provided in the article is coming from Tim Bormann, chief of staff in the Attorney Generals office. I suggest it may not have been the journalist who screwed up, but the AG’s office.
A lawyer getting it wrong? Surely you’re jesting, Donald.
Do you think the “mistake” might have been intentional, whether it was the paper or the AG office?
Debbi: No, it was not intentional. They really are that incompetent.
I’ve contacted the paper asking for a correction. I can’t tell from the text whether they quoted the AG’s office verbatim or just got his advice wrong.
The problem for the paper s the same as the problem for me when I’m pitching the People Power Petition: petition law is complicated. It takes longer than fifteen seconds or even the typical news story to explain in full. But reporters need to take the time to get it right: if they don’t, they cause people to make mistakes and disenfranchise petition signers and voters.
Cory – what is your argument to have out of state residents present petitions to SD residents? Why should anyone out of state be able to present a petition to a SD resident?
Realist: We are all Americans. When I see a wrong being committed in Minnesota or Nebraska, I have both the innate right and the duty to attempt to help right that wrong. If I can make a few bucks while doing so, I’ll spend at least some of them in SoDak.
Why should you be able to drive on Minnesota highways? (Assuming you are a SoDakian)
I think Realist has a point. I actually agree with him, but the requirements we had for circulating petitions in the 1980s and 90s were able to restrict petition circulation to South Dakota residents/registered voters. So, why have all this command and control bureaucracy? There is a way to do this which is not unconstitutional. The goal of the elite, however, is not to allow South Dakota citizens to petition for redress of grievances. That has been their goal since the citizens of South Dakota stopped the elites nuclear waste dump.
The SD elite actually has suggested doing away with the initiative and referendum. Their preferred option since the 1980s has been to get rid of the constitutional provisions that allow for citizen ballot measures. They found out that was politically impossible, and instead the elite has gone about restricting the use of the initiative through needless requirements has actually encouraged more out-of-state participation, not less.
The political elite don’t care about out-of-state participation in SD politics. If they did they wouldn’t have taken money from the out-of-state people who supported the dumps for out-of-state garbage and nuclear waste and the foreign-owned mining in the Black Hills. They wouldn’t accept out-of-state donations to their parties and campaigns.
There is a sharp difference from utilizing another state’s resources (i.e. roads) and presenting a change in the law of a state that you are not a resident. Philosophically sure “we are all humans” but I just feel as a matter of principle petition circulators in SD should be SD residents. Period. From a “realist” POV, I would be very hesitant to sign a petition offered by anyone out of state, particularly out of the Midwest. If a petition initiative doesnt have enough grassroots support in state to have its own residents circulate a petition, I would question its validity in the first place. Also – still waiting Cory’s reply on this issue.
Hey, Realist, get real: my People Power Petition does not change SDCL 12-1-3(11), which requires all petition circulators be residents of South Dakota.
The People Power Petition does not legalize out-of-state circulators. I told Senator Brock Greenfield exactly that at the State Fair. He thought it did, and he seemed genuinely surprised when I explained to him that it does not.
So, “Realist”, would you care to redirect your question?
And don’t forget, the Pierre Capital Journal still got the rules for circulating petitions wrong. They haven’t called me back yet.