Republican gubernatorial candidate and Speaker of the House Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) testified for the defense in federal court on Monday, June 23, in the Dakotans for Health lawsuit against his House Bill 1184, a new law moving the deadline for initiative petitions up three months, from early May to early February. As Seth Tupper reported, Hansen did not perform well on the stand. Tupper focuses on the fact that Hansen, under oath, alleged that attorney Jim Leach had “deliberately stalled the proceedings” in the 2024 lawsuit Hansen brought to disqualify Dakotans for Health’s abortion-rights amendment from the ballot:
Hansen alleged Monday on the stand, under questioning from the state’s lawyer, that one of the reasons the earlier lawsuit didn’t make it to trial before last fall’s election was because Leach deliberately stalled the proceedings. That was among the reasons Hansen wanted to shorten the window for signature collecting, he said — to allow more time for litigation to play out and avoid the possibility of a “completely unlawful” measure being placed on the ballot.
…Leach, during his questioning of Hansen, methodically attacked the stalling allegation. Relying on records from the earlier lawsuit, Leach showed, for example, that he sometimes took less time to file his motions and responses than Hansen’s side did — forcing Hansen to admit that those examples reflected Leach’s promptness. Leach also showed that Hansen’s lead co-counsel in the earlier case, Sara Frankenstein, told the judge at one point that she had no availability during a three-week period, forcing Hansen to answer “yes” when Leach asked if that slowed down the case [Seth Tupper, “Governor Candidate Grilled on Witness Stand in Lawsuit Against Shorter Petition Window,” South Dakota Searchlight, 2025.06.24].
Hansen’s unsupportable smear against Leach wasn’t Hansen’s only deviation from truth under oath. Hansen made a few other claims under oath that stretch credulity:
Low Regulation? In early responses to questions from the state’s defense lawyer Grant Flynn, Hansen characterized himself as a “South Dakota conservative” keeping taxes and regulation low. Yet he appeared on the witness stand to defend his HB 1184, which more strictly regulates petition circulators by banning the collection of signatures for initiatives between the first Tuesday of February and the first Tuesday of May in election years. And as plaintiffs noted in filings, courtroom exhibits, and cross-examination of Hansen, Hansen has sponsored multiple measures adding regulation to the initiative process, including two measures (2019 HB 1094, 2020 SB 180) that he acknowledged on the stand were declared unconstitutional in federal court.
In a related response later, Hansen said his intent is not to make the initiative process more difficult. Yet every initiative-related bill sponsored by Hansen that was discussed in the June 23 hearing, including the deadline change that is the subject of this lawsuit, has made the initiative process more difficult. Hmmm… how many times can a guy swing his fist, hit someone in the nose, and still claim his intent is not to hurt people?
Can’t Remember Amendment X? In his response to Leach’s first question in cross-examination, Hansen said he had “no recollection” of Amendment X, the Republicans’ failed 2018 proposal to raise the vote threshold to amend the state constitution to 55%.
No recollection? That’s funny: he was on the ballot in 2018, right alongside Amendment X, campaigning for District 25 House. Was Hansen so focused on getting back into the Legislative Club that he didn’t pay attention to his party leaders’ push for Amendment X or any other ballot measures? Unlikely: under further cross-examination, Hansen admitted he did recall 2018’s Initiated Measure 24 and its failure to withstand judicial scrutiny. Later Hansen admitted he remembered Initiated Measure 22, which was on the ballot 2016 while Hansen was busy starting his law practice.
Hansen’s memory of Amendment X should have been jogged just five months ago, on January 17, when Speaker Hansen attended the House State Affairs hearing on House Joint Resolution 5003, the Legislature’s proposal to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments to 60%. Nathan Sanderson, appearing on behalf of the South Dakota Retailers Association, mentioned Amendment X in his testimony in favor of HJR 5003. Zebediah N. Johnson of the Voter Defense Association cited Amendment X in his opponent testimony as evidence that South Dakotans don’t want a supermajority requirement to complicate their initiative process.
Hmmm… was Speaker Hansen already so determined to vote aye on sending the 60% threshold to the voters that he spaced off all the testimony diligently provided by citizens to inform the committee’s vote? And would any legislator, not to mention the elected leader of the House of Representatives, cast his vote for a 60% supermajority requirement to amend the state constitution in complete ignorance of the voters’ rejection of a less stringent supermajority requirement just seven years ago?
Earlier Deadline Good for Initiative Sponsors? Hansen claimed more than once on the stand that taking away three months of circulation time is good for initiative sponsors because it gives them more time to appeal in court if the Secretary of State rules that they haven’t submitted enough valid signatures. That claim is ridiculous. Petitioners rarely challenge the Secretary of State’s rejection—it’s happened once that I can recall in recent years, in 2016, and that challenge failed to put the rejected measure on the ballot. Petitions that fail to present enough signatures usually come from a group that lacks the resources to collect enough signatures, and such low-budget groups are unlikely to have the resources to mount a vigorous legal challenge.
Besides, I’ve never heard a ballot question sponsor say, “Gee whiz, I wish we had less time to collect signatures. We should have more time to go to court!” No sponsor would take the deal Hansen offers in this specious claim. Every day and every dollar sponsors might spend on litigation after the deadline would be better spent on collecting signatures before the deadline.
Protecting the Disenfranchised? In twisted history, Hansen claimed that he wants an earlier deadline and more time for petition challenges because he doesn’t want voters to feel disenfranchised. He said the disqualification of Amendment A, pot legalization, in 2021 created “a lot of consternation” among voters who approved the measure only to see the Governor’s lawsuit overturn it.
Hansen’s apparent expression of disappointment over that consternation didn’t hold up under cross-examination. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Leach asked Hansen if he had ever said the challenge to Amendment A was wrong. Hansen said “I don’t think so.” Leach asked Hansen if he is still o.k. with the outcome of that challenge. Hansen conceded he is, although he insisted the results was “not ideal” as it took place after the election. Leach asked Hansen, who is running for Governor, if he is planning to campaign on dissatisfaction with the overturning of Amendment A. Hansen said no, it’s not a core issue.
Hansen isn’t really fighting disenfranchisement here. He doesn’t care if the courts reverse the people’s vote; if Amendment G had passed last November, Hansen would have pressed qualmlessly on with his lawsuit to overturn that vote. Hansen wants more time for petition challenges before the election so he can take away people’s chance to vote on initiatives. He just figures you won’t notice your disenfranchisement if he takes your vote away before you get a chance to cast it.
*****
Maybe as a candidate for Governor, Jon Hansen has gotten used to saying things he doesn’t really mean but which serve a convenient purpose. But I’d think that, as a lawyer, Jon Hansen would still remember that when you’re on the witness stand, in front of a judge, you really ought to stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.