VDA Testimony to SD House State Affairs Committee Hearing on Feb 7 in Opposition to HB 1184

On February 7, I testified (in person) before the SD House State Affairs Committee in Pierre and delivered the following statement in opposition to HB 1184:

“Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee.

My name is Zebadiah Johnson from Sioux Falls. I’m here on behalf of the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota, and am testifying in opposition to HB 1184.

Our mission at the VDA is to defend the ballot initiative rights of South Dakota voters and ensure that laws and regulations governing electoral processes in South Dakota are reasonable, fair, and transparent.

We oppose HB 1184 for the following reasons:

First, this is a bill searching for a problem. The current filing deadline is 6 months prior to the election – more than enough time for certification by the Secretary of State’s office, ballot printing, and all other elements of the initiative and election processes. We feel that the Secretary of State’s office does an excellent job reviewing and approving petitions for the ballot in a timely manner.

Second, the proposed deadline is in the middle of winter. Signature drives depend on warm-enough weather in order to collect the required signatures – the months of March and April see substantial signature collection efforts that would not be as effective if conducted in December and January.

Third, this deadline would be the second earliest of all states that use direct initiatives. Of those states, only Florida would have an earlier filing deadline. 19 states use direct initiatives, and this bill would place our deadline far earlier than 17 of our direct initiative state peers.

As a final point, I’d like to point out that moving the filing deadline farther from the election makes initiative efforts less responsive to the voters. If issues arise where voters feel that actions of the legislature will not reflect their feelings in policy, those same voters will be unable to utilize the initiative process to address those concerns. Under this proposed timeline, initiative-based efforts will have to plan even farther ahead than is already required.

South Dakota’s initiative process works well and is in line with initiative policies around the country. We view this change as a solution without a problem and would ask you to oppose this bill.

Thank you.“

[END]