Just one week after beating Minnehaha County’s restrictive petition policy in federal court, ballot question committee Dakotans for Health is turning its legal fire on Lawrence County’s ban on petitioning in front of the count admin building and courthouse in Deadwood.
A week ago, a Black Hills resident carrying Dakotans for Health’s initiative petitions to put Roe v. Wade abortion rights and a food-tax repeal on the 2024 ballot tweeted that she wasn’t getting much foot traffic at her post in the lovely interior plaza of the Lawrence County government complex:
I looked at the map and thought, well, why not go stand at the front door of the admin building, where everyone is coming in to get license plates and register to vote and do all their other county business?
Evidently the circulator tried that another day, but a county official came outside and handed her a “Political Activity Policy” approved by the Lawrence County Commission on March 10, 2020, prohibiting petition circulators from collecting signatures anywhere on county property other than that interior courtyard, which the county refers to as its plaza.
The plaza is separated by landscaping from the sidewalk on the east, along Highway 85; only one narrow walkway leads from that sidewalk directly to the side door of the courthouse. A circulator stationed in the plaza will encounter no passersby from the street and no pedestrians entering the admin building. Everyone coming for regular county business will enter the admin building through the south door facing the parking lot. The only people petitioners will encounter in the plaza are county employees on break and a few folks headed in or out of court (who usually have more serious matters on their minds and hearing times to meet and thus are far less inclined to stop and talk about issues on the 2024 ballot).
Lawrence County’s petition circulation restrictions thus segregate circulators from the vast majority of eligible voters and signers as surely as did Minnehaha County’s unconstitutional attempt to boot petitioners out to the unsafe parking lot.
In a complaint filed yesterday in the Western Division of United States District Court of South Dakota, Dakotans for Health says Lawrence County, too, is violating the First Amendment by denying petitioners and voters the opportunity to engage in core political speech.
Dakotans for Health is seeking a temporary restraining order against enforcement of this restrictive policy until its case can be heard in federal court. Dakotans for Health’s case includes a declaration from me, as a paid expert witness, stating that the policy severely restricts the ability of petitioners and voters to interact and put issues on the ballot. It also includes circulator Leah Bothamley’s formal declaration that the county enforced the policy on her and that the plaza is a poor location for petitioning. D4H’s memorandum supporting its request for a temporary restraining order, authored by D4H attorney Jim Leach, relies heavily on the case Leach won for D4H against Minnehaha County. Leach notes that Lawrence County hasn’t even offered a clear and specific motivation for its restrictions on petitioners:
The Minnehaha County policy at least had a colorable reason for enactment: occasional problems with one or two petition circulators, albeit problems that were covered by the existing policy. The Lawrence County policy has no known colorable basis, for either its original enactment or its continued existence. The only stated reason for the Lawrence County policy is cliche that seems to have been copied from Pennington County. So the Lawrence County policy probably violates the First Amendment, just like the Minnehaha County policy did [James Leach, Dakotans for Health v. Ewing et al., memorandum in support of TRO, U.S. District Court of South Dakota, 2023.06.20].
Judge Roberto Lange resolved the Minnehaha County case in five weeks. The Lawrence County case appears to have been assigned to Judge Karen Schreier; it will be interesting to see what effect her colleague Judge Lange’s hot-off-the-bench precedent will have on the alacrity with which Judge Schreier addresses this new First Amendment case.
Hurrah!!
Few, very, very, very few walk through that enclosed courtyard. The Lawrence County politicians want no dissenters.
Watch their upcoming press statement chortling as if it’s all just a big misunderstanding . . .
BUSTED!! * Beat The B*stards Back
They all should lose their jobs for failing to keep their oath to our Democracy and our Constitution. Their number one job is meaningless to them so they should actually be quartered. Just joshing. But this is serious and they’re on the verge of dishonoring our Bill of Rights. They should be removed from their position, fined, and possibly imprisoned. We need to step up and take these things as serious as attacks on our true SD values, if we are worth any salt. We hear all the time from individuals about SD values. Yet, not a peep when officials violate their oath. Cmon, guys.
There seems to have been an anti-First Amendment pandemic amongst the county commissioners out in Dakota. It appears the only cure is a good old fashioned legal beat down. Thanks to Jim and Cory and the petition circulator for bringing this suit. You wonder how many other counties are violating South Dakotan’s’ rights to free speech.
You are correct Donald…County Commissioners are about as “old school” as it can get. They seem to think they can do as they choose, as long as they keep it quiet. They are great for maintaining the status quo and not much else.
Update: the District Court has transferred the case from Judge Schreier to Judge Lange.
Hahahaha, Hurrah for judicial economy.