NEW: Panel rejects proposal on ballot measures

By Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer | Thursday, June 29, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

PIERRE - A proposal that would have required sponsors of proposed state laws to get more signatures in order to put their measures on the ballot was rejected Thursday by a special commission.

The proposal, which could have increased by about 50 percent the number of signatures needed to put an initiated measure on the ballot, was defeated on a 5-7 vote by the Constitutional Revision Commission, which is studying legal provisions that deal with the legislative process.

Commission member Bob Roe of Brookings, a former state lawmaker, said voters would never accept any proposal that boosted the number of signatures needed to put something on the ballot for a statewide public vote. South Dakotans are determined to protect their right to place measures on the ballot, and they would block any move to make that more difficult, he said.

"I think history shows us every time we've tried to increase the number of signatures required, it's been not only defeated but overwhelmingly defeated," Roe said.

But Pierre lawyer Ron Olinger, another commission member, said this year's ballot will be cluttered with many proposed laws and constitutional amendments. Supporters would be able to get additional signatures to put worthwhile proposals on the ballot, he said.

"Let's fix it before it's a train wreck," Olinger said.

The commission is studying the parts of the South Dakota Constitution and state laws that deal with the legislative process. It will recommend laws or constitutional changes for consideration by the 2007 Legislature.

South Dakota law now requires that to put a proposed new law on the ballot or to refer a legislative-passed measure to a statewide vote, organizers must gather the signatures of registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the last election. That number is 16,728 this year.

A proposed constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot with signatures of 10 percent of the total vote for governor in the last election. That number is 33,456 this year.

The proposal defeated by the committee Thursday would have changed the law to require the signatures of 5 percent of the state's registered voters to put an initiated law on the ballot. With current voter registration, that would have meant 24,447 signatures, well above the 16,728 required for proposed laws under current law.

Sen. Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland, who is not a member of the commission, appeared at the meeting to oppose increasing the number of signatures needed to put initiated laws on the ballot. The placement of measures on the ballot is a safety valve for people who disagree with what the Legislature does, he said.

"We are a grass-roots state, a populist state, that strongly believes in that right to refer or initiate," Kloucek said.

The commission also is considering a plan that would lead to a more thorough examination of proposed laws and constitutional amendments before sponsors start collecting signatures to place them on the ballot.

Sponsors are now required to submit ballot proposals to the Legislative Research Council, which then recommends style and form changes. Those recommendations by the Legislature's staff include not only grammatical changes, but also advice on changes needed to comply with constitutional provisions.

LRC attorney Reuben Bezpaletz said the sponsors of about half the measures welcome the advice, while the others often choose to ignore those suggested changes or legal advice.

For example, the sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment that would set up a system allowing people to sue judges were advised that their proposal would conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The LRC also told them the lengthy measure would more properly be a proposed law, not a proposed change to the South Dakota Constitution.

The sponsors ignored that advice, collected signatures and placed the measure on the November ballot.

Commission member Frank Brost said it would be better to identify flawed measures before they are placed on the ballot, rather than have them pass in an election and then be thrown out after a lengthy and expensive court battle.

The commission is looking at setting up a special committee that would analyze the constitutionality and other aspects of proposed ballot measures. The panel also is considering a recommendation that would establish a public hearing on each ballot measure before sponsors could start collecting signatures to place it on the ballot.