(C) South Dakota Searchlight
This story was originally published by South Dakota Searchlight and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Bill allowing counties, cities to reject initiative petitions fails by one vote • South Dakota Searchlight [1]

['Makenzie Huber', 'More From Author', '- March']

Date: 2024-03-07  

A bill that would have allowed county commissioners or city finance officers to reject local ballot-question petitions if they violate state or federal law failed by one vote on the last day of the legislative session.

The bill was a response to petitions regarding election security concerns circulating in at least 18 of South Dakota’s 66 counties. Petitions turned in to Lawrence and McPherson counties this week would ask local voters to not only ban electronic tabulators and require votes to be hand counted in elections, but also prohibit the use of all electronic devices in elections – including devices to help disabled people vote.

Rep. Kristin Conzet, R-Rapid City, told lawmakers that the bill, if passed, would point out an “unintended flaw” for petitioners.

“What we did here was insert an out clause for the parties to realize – at least two of the counties – that what they have done here is going to put the state in judicial jeopardy,” Conzet said.

State law requires an electronic ballot marking system be available if a candidate for a federal office is on the ballot.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that each polling place for a federal election provide a voting device allowing voters with disabilities to vote independently and privately, according to the secretary of state’s website.

The House failed to pass the bill when it deadlocked 35-35, after it passed the Senate earlier in the day. Opponents argued that the bill would disenfranchise voters and that broad assumptions about lawsuits didn’t hold water. They also argued that the bill would saddle petition circulators with court costs if they challenged the governing body’s rejection.

“We’ve talked about whether this is a clear violation or not of state or federal law, but we don’t know if it’s clear or not,” said Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids. “A lot of these times it’s not clear. That’s why litigation gets spun up.”

The Lawrence County Commission will take up its submitted petition at its March 12 meeting. McPherson County commissioners will meet on April 2.

Based on current law, those counties must accept the petitions and put them to a public vote if they have verified signatures from at least 5% of registered voters in the county. Since the primary election is less than three months away, county residents would vote on the election security measures in the June 4 primary election. If approved by voters, the measures would then be in effect for the Nov. 5 general election.

Despite that, legal experts worry that the submitted petitions aren’t legally sound. A private lawyer in Rapid City specializing in election law, Sara Frankenstein, said in an earlier interview with South Dakota Searchlight that in addition to the possible violation regarding disability rights, several other requirements outlined in the petitions don’t “jibe” with the language in state statute, which could create problems. For example, she said, the way “tabulation” is written in the petitions means something different than the definitions in state law.

“If that petition passed and was called to a vote, then we’d have to campaign on the legality of something that shouldn’t ever be put to a vote anyway,” Frankenstein said. “What a waste of campaign dollars that these poor people are going to have to put up to not pass something illegal.”

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2024/03/07/bill-allowing-counties-cities-reject-initiative-petitions-fails-sd-legislature-south-dakota-canvassing-group/

Published and (C) by South Dakota Searchlight
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/sdsearchlight/