We’ll get to see who, if anyone, shows up this morning in Senate Local Government to testify for or against Senate Bill 180, the retread of Representative Jon Hansen’s latest favorite hobby, hamstringing the initiative and referendum process.
Last year Hansen’s first stop on the anti-petitioner train was House State Affairs. Paid lobbyists from the South Dakota Biotechnology Association, South Dakota Retailers Association, and South Dakota Chamber of Commerce all testified for Hansen’s circulator registry and badges; Dakota Rural Action and Frank Kloucek spoke against that infringement on democracy and the Constitution. In Senate State Affairs, Biotech and Retailers repeated their support for enlisting more state help in their efforts to stop citizens from having a say; opponents did not appear at that hearing.
South Dakota Biotech exerted itself mightily in 2017 and 2018 to keep Initiated Measure 26, Rick Weiland’s prescription drug price cap, off the 2018 ballot. They certainly are keen on being able to keep their lobbying power focused on hungry, isolated, and malleable legislators. The Retailers and the Chamber also tend to work against ballot measures more often than they work for them, because businesses also prefer a captive audience. The fewer choices the masses can make, the more efficiently they can make money (on that theme, see also Senate Bill 157, Governor Noem’s attack on local control in favor of “streamlined” CAFO approval).
SD Biotech has five lobbyists on the payroll this Session: the Governor’s own Matt McCaulley (who, with Jon Hansen, led the well-paid legal team that killed the IM 26 petition), Drew Duncan, Grace Beck, and Representative Sue Peterson’s kin, her hubby and former legislator Bill Peterson and their squeaky clean son Robert. The Secretary of State says Robert’s authorization to lobby for Biotech is still pending, so Dad might have to handle SB 180 today on his own.
SD Retailers have four paid lobbyists: Doug Abraham, William Van Camp, Nathan Sanderson, and Jim Hood. Sanderson spoke to last year’s circulator registry and badge bill; he’d be the logical choice to speak again to SB 180.
The SD Chamber has just one paid lobbyist, David Owen… and that’s all they need, right? Well, Owen is backed up by four paid lobbyists for the Sioux Falls Chamber plus one more each from the Yankton, Brookings, Huron, and Rapid City Chambers, but the state Chamber usually handles ballot measures. Owen spoke to HB 1094 last year; given Owen’s recognition of the value of this blog on Legislative matters, and given that this blog is the only source of analysis that I’ve seen on Senate Bill 180, perhaps Owen is perfectly positioned to come to Senate Local Government this morning and say, “Heidelberger told you guys last year that circulator registries and badges were unconstitutional, but you didn’t listen; let’s double-check this proposal and make sure we don’t get embarrassed in court again.”
The anti-petition lobbyists may not have to work very hard on Senate Bill 180. First, it’s another dip into the arcane world of petition circulation, something that very few people in the state understand, let alone participate in. As I discovered when I tried (and failed) to refer last year’s circulator registry and badge bill to a vote, conversations that start with the words initiative and referendum almost immediately glaze a majority of eyes (too many syllables, too little daily context). Legislators aren’t going to analyze a complicated bill dealing with the minutiae of ballot measures; they’re going to do what caucus leadership tells them to do. The Republican leadership is going to tell its members to vote aye, and they will, and that’s that.
Second, few defenders of petition rights are going to work up a committee sweat on SB 180. I won’t—I’ve got to work today. I had a hard enough time rousing public angst over last years registry and badge plan because it had no immediate effect on the 99.9% of voters who have never circulated a petition. SB 180 targets only paid circulators, mostly the out-of-state mercenaries who sneak around our petitioner-residency requirement to shake down signers with blind salesmanly zeal. SB 180 actually makes life easier for grassroots volunteers petition circulators by repealing the burdensome and legally perilous circulator affidavit and by removing the unconstitutional forced disclosure of circulator name and contact info from the circulator handout, so for the most part, passionate petition volunteers will look at SB 180 and say, “No skin off my nose!”
I could see SB 180 having some indirect impact on volunteer circulators: if we start seeing paid circulators on the street with badges, and then we spot a badgeless petitioner, voters may start to think the badge indicates legitimacy and badgelessness signals law-breaking. “Where’s your badge?” they’ll ask, starting off the voter–volunteer conversation on a note of suspicion, which the circulator will have to dispel with an unnecessary discourse on the arcanities of SB 180 and the legal distinction between paid and volunteer circulators and oh yeah would you still like to sign my petition which has nothing to do with all those lengthy details I just bored you with and—hey, where’d they go?
The paid circulators probably won’t show up to testify against SB 180, because their leaders are all mostly elsewhere, running petition drives in other states, and not paying attention to the South Dakota Legislature. Besides, they have the money to register their people and distribute badges.
Senate Local Government and the lobbyists won’t spend much time on SB 180 today. SB 180 is an opportunity to quietly slap another burden onto the initiative and referendum process and reduce the power of the people in a way that’s hard to rouse public sentiment against. That may be all the more reason to watch to make sure the lobbyists and the Republican caucus don’t sneak addition burdens into an already problematic bill that, like its 2019 predecessor, is likely to drag the state into court.
Essentially what’s happened in South Dakota is that citizens have given up. The corruption is too much to overcome, apparently.
But, hey, it wasn’t much different in the 1970s, when United Family Farmers started organizing against the Oahe Irrigation Project. Back then the corruption was bipartisan, but that was the major difference. Similar arrays of special interest groups and corrupt leaders stood in the way of citizens. It wasn’t much different when citizens started to organize against uranium mining, or ETSI, or the Mandan Powerline, or nuclear waste dumps, or large-scale solid waste dumps, or heap leach mining, or corporate farming in the late 1970s to the 1990s.
What’s different now is the lack of citizen organizing, though I think Dakota Rural Action still is doing that work on their issues. There may be others I’m not aware of.
One of the things I regret is that grassroots work sort of fell apart in the late 1990s as groups lost leaders for any number of reasons. Citizen groups with full-time lobbyists used to be a semi-force at the Legislature. They would mostly lose, but they would make their points, and be organizing year-round around their issues. If you aren’t doing it all, you aren’t doing it at all. All the work should feed into other work. You can’t just do an initiative all on its own. It has to be part of ongoing work, including being at the Legislature to oppose bad bills.
Donald, the methodical undermining of unions was page one of the GOP playbook to ensure that “their” voices could be loudest. Organizing with out an organization is hard. Even the corporate personhood and money is speech decisions have helped the GOP make sure “their” voices are loudest.
Making the system tilt in their favor certainly puts the advantage on the corporate profiteers.
Bill Peterson and Matt McCaulley testified for SD Biotech at the hearing today. David Owen spoke for the Chamber. Senate Local Government adopted Stalzer’s amendment and approved SB 180 5–0. Correction: Senator Wismer tells me the vote was actually 5–2: the LRC mistakenly reports that she and Senator Schoenfish were excused. When I get a chance, I’ll listen to the audio and get the straight story.
Cory says, “The paid circulators probably won’t show up to testify against SB 180, because their leaders are all mostly elsewhere, running petition drives in other states, and not paying attention to the South Dakota Legislature.”
– True that, Cory. But, ex-pats like me are paying attention. We’ll wait until the new laws are signed and then quickly devise ways around them, like we’ve done before. We The People who value democracy and free speech work without pay from behind the scenes. I’ll let the organizers who want to know, know how to come to SD and do the people’s work. Besides, at a buck a signature every paid circulator from Colorado is driving a new Benz and vacationing in the Bahamas off the vast wealth they earn doing what SD residents don’t care about, anymore. NOT!!
Oh! Senator Wismer tells me that the minutes posted by LRC this noon are wrong! She and Senator Schoenfish were in the room and they both voted no! I apologize to both Senators for mistakenly reporting (based on LRC’s mistaken minutes) that they were absent, and I apologize doubly to Senator Schoenfish for assuming he would vote the party line. Maybe becoming a Senator has helped Schoenfish become more of his own man!
Porter, will it be easier to find ways to circumvent SB 180 or to simply take it to court and rule it unconstitutional?
Cory … Wait and see, I suppose. BTW, not enough praise comes your way for the work you do on Initiative/Referendum. I’m leaving on my scheduled six week hiatus from all social media and before I go I’d like to thank you on behalf of Democrats nationwide. Hip Hip Hooray for Cory. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 (If it’s as enjoyable as it usually is, I might not be back ‘til after the election.) 😎
The Council of Legislatures is really falling down these days, or are conspiring against Ms. Wismer.
The best way to empower the people of SD is to elect Democrats! Change the power structure so no party has the ability to do whatever they want regardless of what citizens want or how they are affected. Make government respect voters by making SD a 2 party state.
Hi Cory!
I’m curious, would it be illegal for a volunteer to craft and wear their own UNPAID VOLUNTEER CIRCULATOR badge?
Kind regards,
David
No, it wouldn’t, David. That would be your First Amendment right. We wore name tags at times during our initiative petitioning efforts, but we could have (probably should have) made some badges for people to wear. I had my name and my town (Rapid City) on the tag. But it should be voluntary. You shouldn’t need to have a badge to exercise your Constitutional rights.
In fact, someone with graphic art skills could draft up some draft examples the look official.
State of South Dakota Volunteer Petition Circulator
David Bergan
Your Town, SD
In fact, someone with graphic art skills could draft up some draft examples that look official.
State of South Dakota
Volunteer Petition Circulator
David Bergan
Your Town, SD
Thanks Donald! That’s exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Make your own badges so you can stick to the topic at hand.
Kind regards,
David
Donald’s right: the state can’t force circulators to identify themselves, but the state also cannot prohibit circulators from identifying themselves. I always identify myself while circulating. I often wear an ID tag of some sort while circulating. I want people to know I’m their neighbor and that the issues matter to me as much as to them.
Yes, Cory, but I’m thinking there ought to be a way to do an official-looking badge, just like the big-shot lobbyists do. Name tags certainly work. I used them. But wouldn’t it be nice to stick an official badge right up the rectums of David Owen and his commie friends.
“You want badges!!!? Here’s my badge. Now git, or I’ll stick this badge where the sun don’t shine!!!”
I kept my South Dakota lobbying badges from decades ago. They’re stashed away somewhere. If I find time to go through some boxes, I’ll stop by a vendor and see if they can make something along that line with the state seal and everything.
Official-looking badges wouldn’t be hard to make, Donald. I see Republican candidates making fake badges aping the official Legislator badges. We circulators and petition sponsors could do the same. From a marketing perspective, we could distinguish ourselves from the paid hacks. SD Voice could make bright pink buttons… or we could wear yellow flowers, like my blog friends and I did when I did the blog tour in 2014, to identify ourselves as members of the movement. “Look for the yellow flower, and sign the petition to make South Dakota bloom!”