The Problem and Solution for Senate Bill 91D
SB 91 was introduced to strengthen South Dakota’s ballot initiative process by increasing uniformity across petitions for initiated amendments to the Constitution and initiated measures. SB 91 would also allow petitions to be contained to a single sheet of standard 8.5x11 paper by moving the full text of the initiative to the handout (making it easier for voters to access the initiative text at their leisure). It also increases petition transparency for signers by requiring the title of the amendment/measure to be on the front and back sides of the petition.
However, SB 91D, as amended by Speaker Hansen, adds a new policy change to the legislation. It shifts the deadline for submitting initiative petition signatures from May to February – this is the same change made by House Bill 1184 (sponsored by Hansen), which the VDA opposes for a number of reasons:
It is a drastic change in policy that restricts the initiative process. South Dakota would have the second earliest deadline out of the 19 states that have a direct initiative process ("direct" meaning that an initiative is not submitted to the legislature for consideration prior to qualifying for the ballot).
It establishes a deadline for initiatives before the conclusion of the even-year legislative session.
Due to South Dakota's climate, it would effectively force signature drives to conclude in October/November/December of odd-numbered years, roughly 12 months before an election.
You can read our lobbyist, Zebadiah Johnson’s, testimony against HB 1184 here
Speaker Hansen cited the reason for the amendment being: SB 91C conflicts with HB 1184 and creates an irreconcilable difference. However, this is due to the fact that the Legislative Research Council (LRC) wanted to use SB 91 to reorganize the statutes. LRC did this by making additional changes in Sections 1 and 2 of SB 91 and creating Section 3, so that they could move portions of SDCL 2-1-1.1 and 2-1-1.2 into a new standalone section of law. This "clean up" action was not necessary to accomplish the policy goals of the legislation. However, we agreed with the LRC at the time because we agreed with the LRC's goal of well-organized statutes. HB 1184 had not yet been introduced when SB 91 was introduced.
There is no need for SB 91 and HB 1184 to conflict. If SB 91 is made simpler, it can then avoid any overlap with HB 1184. Here is our proposed solution, using SB 91C as the starting point:
Section 1: Remove all of the changes from page 2, line 12 onwards.
Section 2: Remove all of the changes from page 3, line 23 onwards
Section 3: Remove entirely
With the above changes, the bills will not overlap. They will make changes to the same section of law, but in different portions of that section.
[END]