After a laundry list of ballot measure questions during the last election, a legislative summer study commission is taking a closer look at whether that process is too easy and what changes may or may not be needed.
The Initiative and Referendum Task Force has wrapped up two days of meetings in Pierre.
Why is this committee meeting in the first place?
Those ten ballot questions voted on last November included everything from IM 22, an ethics reform package), to setting caps on interest rates, to reaffirming a vote from a few years ago to raise the minimum wage.
There are three types of ballot measure questions.
An initiated measure... which is a new law or change to state statute.
A constitutional amendment… which is a change to our state’s constitution.
Citizens of South Dakota also have the chance to refer a law the state legislature passes during session. Those are called 'referred laws.' A good example of that back in 2014, South Dakotans passed an initiated measure to increase the state’s minimum wage to $8.50, with cost of living adjustments.…
The following legislative session, then-state Senator David Novstrup brought forth a bill that tweaked the law passed by voters. Novstrup’s bill established a one-dollar-lower minimum wage for workers under the age of seventeen.
That law referred and last November voters voted again on the issue to uphold their own decision that the minimum wage should include everyone, including minors.
Last November’s ballot has been affectionately referred to as the beach towel ballot. South Dakota was the first state in the country to set up the initiative and referendum process. In the 70’s citizens were given the right to even mend the state’s constitution.
Some lawmakers felt there were so many ballot questions to answer during the last election that a legislative committee should take a closer look at the process. So, HB 1141 set up that task force.
What is this committee taking a look at exactly?
A lot.
Keep in mind, the committee has no set agenda as of yet, but here are some of the initial talking points from the first two days of hearings.
• Requiring higher threshold for constitutional amendments to pass… anywhere from 55 to 60 percent, as opposed to the over 50 percent needed currently.
• Assuming a blank vote on a constitutional amendment means no. That’s a law in Minnesota.
• Requiring petition signatures from across the state, in various districts and counties… not just Rapid City and Sioux Falls.
• Limiting the number of ballot measure that can reach the ballot for vote.
• Changing the number of signatures required… to make it less easy to get on the ballot.
Emily Wanless is a political science professor at Augustana University… she’s chair of the Initiative and Referendum Task Force. In her opening remarks she said close to 10 million dollars from out of state was spent on these ballot measure questions, both for and against.
That’s a factor that lawmakers tried dealing with during last legislative session, and what Speaker of the House Mark Michelson hopes to try via the ballot box this coming election.
Anyways. Will Mortenson is a member of this task force. He worked on the No On Amendment V campaign last year. Amendment V hoped to establish nonpartisan elections in the state. He says the initiative and referendum process was originally put in place to protect the state from outside influence but that that’s changed.
“We put this in place to protect ourselves from big money coming in from the coast and now it’s the primary vehicle, that big money from the coast comes in to buy policy in South Dakota," Mortenson says.
This task force is really searching for a fine line. At what point is it too easy for these out of state groups--which many lawmakers talk about, especially in reference to IM 22 and Marcy’s Law (the law that offers rights to victims of all crimes and to some of their relatives)--to reduce those from coming in to buy an elections versus South Dakotans using the system.
There was concern about, and this is a term that was used, ‘malicious ballot measures' making the ballot. An example thrown around was the constitutional amendment last year to set interest rates at 18 percent for verbal agreements… another rate could be agreed to in writing. That constitutional amendment was backed by the pay day loan industry.
Cory Heidelberger is the primary writer for Dakota Free Press, a liberal blog here in the state. Recall he ran for Senate last election cycle and was also behind two successful law referrals--the minimum wage increase and some changes to the petition process.
Heidelberger talked about the idea of preventing 'malicious ballot measures.' He says if there are going to be provisions to prevent malicious ballot measures, what about measures preventing malicious candidates? He basically says what's more influential, an initiated measure, which is a change to one piece of state statute, as opposed to someone who was an elected official. He offered himself as an example of someone who could run for governor. He says he’d need roughly 700 signatures to place his name on the ballot for governor.
Another possible focus of this group that sticks out to me is limiting the number of ballot measures that reach the ballot for a vote. Where did that idea come from?
Depending on your perspective, the number of ballot measures that reached the ballot this past election either means it’s too easy to place a measure on or that the system is working…
According to the state’s Legislative Research Council, two states in the United States place a cap on the number of ballot questions that make the ballot. One phrase that was said a lot during the past two days is the notion of voter fatigue. While he says he doesn’t necessarily support limiting the number of ballot questions, State Senator Jim Bolin says he wants to explore the idea.
“That’s just a reflection of the vast majority of the people I represent in the legislature," Bolin says. "It’s the sheer volume of things that are on the ballot that causes voter fatigue for the people I represent.”
Reminder, when does this task force meet again?
July 19 in Pierre.
Check out these committee documents for more information.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Interim/Documents.aspx?Committee=189&MeetingDate=06-20-2017&Session=2017