South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
- Early voting: Sept. 21 - Nov. 5
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 5
- Online registration: No
- Same-day registration: No
- Voter ID: Photo ID required
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
| South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns and Direct democracy measures | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The South Dakota State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment, also known as Constitutional Amendent W, was on the ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1] It was defeated.
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of amending the state constitution to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and establish new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against amending the state constitution to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and establish new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. |
The initiative would have amended the state constitution to revise state campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a new State Government Accountability Board, and establish new laws governing the initiative and referendum process in South Dakota.[1]
Election results
|
South Dakota Amendment W |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 142,769 | 45.06% | ||
|
|
174,081 | 54.94% | ||
Overview
What would the initiative have done?
The initiative would have replaced the existing ethics and accountability commission with a seven-member accountability board with new provisions determining board member selection and expanded duties and authorities of the board—including authority over members of the legislature. The initiative would have also established campaign finance and lobbying restrictions, required voter approval for any substantive changes to a voter-approved initiative or referendum, required voter approval to make alterations to the state's initiative and referendum process, and constitutionalized the simple majority requirement for the approval of initiatives and referendums at the ballot. Details on the provisions of this amendment are below.[1]
This measure was proposed in response to the state legislature repealing Initiative 22, a campaign finance and election-related measure approved by voters in 2016. Initiative 22 was an initiated state statute, which meant that the legislature was able to repeal or amend it. This 2018 initiative was a constitutional amendment and, had it passed, it could not have been repealed or amended without voter approval.[2]
State of the ballot measure campaigns Ballotpedia identified one ballot measure committee, Represent South Dakota, registered in support of the measure. The committee had raised $1.14 million and spent $1.25 million including in-kind services. The top donors were Represent.Us ($390,440) and End Citizens United ($12,609).[3][4]
Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to oppose the measure: South Dakota Republican Ballot Question Committee, (which had not reported any campaign finance activity) and W is Wrong, which raised $230,816.11 in contributions and spent it all.[4]
Initiative design
The initiative was designed to amend or add language to multiple sections of the state constitution. Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of different provisions:[1]
Accountability board: provisions designed to rescind an existing ethics and accountability commission and replace it with a new seven-member State Government Accountability Board
Accountability board
The initiative would have rescinded the existing ethics and accountability commission, which was established by the state legislature in 2017 through House Bill 1076. The initiative would have replaced that board with a new seven-member State Government Accountability Board.[1]
The board would have had authorities and duties including but not limited to the following:[1]
- investigate any allegation of ethics violations against any state or local official, judge, or employee;
- adopt ethics rules;
- issue advisory opinions on matters of ethics and accountability;
- employ and manage staff members, such as lawyers, investigators, and administrators;
- audit campaign finance reports, lobbying disclosures, and other ethics-related disclosures;
- impose sanctions, such as fines and administrative orders;
- execute programs to educate the public and officials on campaign finance, election, lobbying, and ethics rules; and
- annually submit draft laws designed to reduce corruption and transparency for consideration by the legislature.
Board members would have served four-year terms, which would have been staggered through curtailing first terms by a random drawing. Members could have only served two terms. Vacancies would have been filled in the same manner as initial appointments. Any registered voter would have been eligible to serve on the board except lobbyists; local, state, or federal public officials; political party officials; and anyone who has changed their party affiliation within the previous two years. From the applicants, the initiative would have dictated the following appointments:[1]
- two members—both former judges and each registered with a different major political party—appointed by the South Dakota Supreme Court;
- one member appointed by the governor from a list of three applicants selected by the speaker of the house;
- one member appointed by the governor from a list of three applicants selected by the house minority leader; and
- three members, including at most one lawyer, appointed by majority vote of the first four appointed members.
Amendment W was designed to require that a minimum of $389,000 be earmarked to fund the board's operations each year. It was also written to require board members to disclose financial interest and recuse themselves in matters that involve personal interest unless a tie-break vote was required.
Campaign finance restrictions: provisions designed to create caps on contributions from a single source and ban contributions from certain sources
Campaign finance restrictions
The initiative would have created the following rules regarding campaign finance:[1]
- cap campaign contributions from a single source in any one election cycle at the following amounts (adjusted for inflation):
- $500 for state House candidates and candidates for local office
- $750 for state Senate candidates
- $1,500 for candidates for the offices of attorney general, lieutenant governor, commissioner of school and public lands, auditor, treasurer, secretary of state, and all other elected state offices except the governor
- $4,000 for gubernatorial candidates
- create an exception from the above contribution caps for political parties and contributions from the candidate or candidate's spouse to his or her own campaign;
- cap contributions to a political party from a single source in any given year at $5,000 (adjusted for inflation);
- ban any state official from using public funds for personal gain (less than $10,000: misdemeanor; more than $10,000: felony);
- ban political contributions from foreign governments;
- ban using campaign contributions for personal things (felony);
- ban labor unions and corporations from making political contributions to candidates or political parties; and
- direct judges to recuse themselves from any case involving political contributions to the judges' election campaigns which could reasonably suggest bias
Lobbying restrictions: provisions that would have determined who could become a lobbyist, required lobbyists to register with the state and make certain disclosures, and banned gifts to state and local officials
Lobbying restrictions
The initiative contained the following provisions regarding lobbyists:[1]
- a directive to the legislature to pass laws requiring anyone employed to influence the actions of officials to register as a lobbyist and to make certain disclosures
- a ban on lobbyists giving gifts to state and local officials—both elected and appointed—with an exception for relatives (misdemeanor)
- a ban on any state or local official—whether elected or appointed—from becoming a lobbyist while in office and for two years after leaving office
- with an exception for becoming a public lobbyist for a state or local government entity
- a ban on lobbyists delivering a political contribution from someone else
Initiative and referendum procedures: provisions that would have prohibited the legislature from amending or repealing citizen initiatives without voter approval and that would have required voter approval for changes to the state's initiative and referendum process
Initiative and referendum procedures
The initiative contained the following provisions regarding the state's initiative and referendum process:[1]
- a voter approval requirement for any substantive changes to the state's initiative and referendum process;
- the addition of the state's simple majority voter approval requirement for initiated state statutes and veto referendums into the state constitution;
- Going into the election, the state's existing law required a simple majority, rather than a supermajority, for approval of initiatives, but the rule was in statute rather than the constitution.
- a prohibition on the legislature amending or repealing citizen initiatives—referred to as legislative alteration or legislative alteration—without voter approval.
- Going into 2017, South Dakota was one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature could amend or repeal initiated statutes. As of 2018, the voter approval requirement was the strongest type of restriction on legislative alteration; Arizona and California were the only two states to employ it. The other eight states—out of the 21 total with a process for initiated state statutes—had restrictions based on time limits, supermajority requirements, or both.
Other provisions: provisions dealing with bribery and corrupt solicitation
Other provisions
The initiative was also designed to make crimes of bribery and corrupt solicitation felonies unless otherwise specified.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, creating a government accountability board, and changing certain initiatives and referendum provisions.[5] | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ | This constitutional amendment lowers campaign contribution amounts to candidates and political parties. It prohibits contributions to candidates or political parties by labor unions and corporations. Candidates and elected officials are prohibited from using campaign contributions for personal use.
The amendment expands the scope of activities requiring people to register as lobbyists, and places additional restrictions on lobbyists. The amendment replaces the government accountability board recently created by the Legislature. The new board is granted broad power, including the power to investigate, adopt rules, issues advisory opinions, and conduct audits. It may impose sanctions, including fines, on any elected or appointed official, judge, or State or local government employee. The amendment annually appropriates State funds to be solely administered by the board. The amendment limits the number of votes necessary for approval of any initiative or referendum to a simple majority. It requires the Legislature to make specific factual findings when enacting laws that are not subject to referral. If the Legislature wants to change the initiative or referendum process, or a law passed by initiative, it must submit the change to the voters. This multiple-section amendment makes other additions to the Constitution. It will likely be challenged on constitutional grounds.[5] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article III, South Dakota Constitution
The measure would have added a new article to the South Dakota Constitution and amended Section 1 of Article III of the state constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
New Article of the South Dakota Constitution Section 1. This amendment shall be known as the South Dakota Voter Protection and Anti-Corruption Amendment. Section 2. That the Constitution of the State of South Dakota be amended by adding a new Article to read as follows: §1. Whereas the motto of the state of South Dakota is "Under God the People Rule" and whereas the Legislature inherently derives its power from the consent of the people, the people of South Dakota hereby find and declare that in order to protect the public trust:
§2. The offenses of bribery and corrupt solicitation provided under Article III § 28 are felonies punishable as provided by law. §3. A lobbyist may not knowingly give or offer to give a gift to an individual who they know or should know is a senior public servant. The prohibition under this section does not apply if the lobbyist is the spouse, fiancée, or fiancé of the senior public servant, or is, whether by blood or marriage, a child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of the senior public servant. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as provided by law. §4. No public official may knowingly use state resources for improper personal gain. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as provided by law, but a violation of this section where a public official knowingly uses state resources for improper personal gain exceeding ten thousand dollars is a felony punishable as provided by law. §5. A foreign government outside of the United States may not make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any state or local candidate election. §6. A candidate or person holding elective office may not knowingly use a campaign contribution for personal use. A violation of this section is a felony punishable as provided by law. §7. A labor union or corporation may not, directly or through an intermediary, make a campaign contribution to a candidate or political party. §8. A candidate may not knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a campaign contribution within the South Dakota capitol building. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as provided by law. §9. A senior public servant may not become a lobbyist, other than a public lobbyist for state or local government, while holding office as a senior public servant and for a period of two years after holding office as a senior public servant. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as provided by law. §10. A lobbyist may not knowingly deliver a campaign contribution made by another individual or entity. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as provided by law. As used in this section, "deliver" means to transport, carry, transfer, or otherwise transmit, either physically or electronically. The prohibition in this section does not apply to a person who delivers a campaign contribution to the person's own campaign, or to the campaign of the person's immediate family member. This section may not be interpreted to prohibit any person from making a campaign contribution or from encouraging others to make a campaign contribution or otherwise to support or oppose a candidate. §11. A judge shall avoid the appearance of bias, and shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which monetary or in-kind support related to the judge's election or retention creates an appearance of bias to a reasonable person. §12. A candidate may not accept campaign contributions from a single source that, in total and per election cycle for the office sought, exceed:
Any limit prescribed in this section does not apply to a contribution made by a political party, or to a contribution made by the candidate or the candidate's spouse to the candidate's own campaign. The secretary of state shall by administrative rule adjust any dollar amount in this section for inflation after each general election. §13. A political party may not accept campaign contributions from a single source that, in total and per calendar year, exceed five thousand dollars. For purposes of this section, a state political party and its affiliated local committees or subdivisions shall be treated as a single political party. The secretary of state shall by administrative rule adjust the dollar amount in this section for inflation after each general election. §14. The Legislature shall regulate persons who are employed or otherwise gainfully compensated to act as a lobbyist to influence in any manner legislative, executive, or administrative action, and shall ensure that such persons promptly register with the state as lobbyists and disclose information that is pertinent to the public interest. §15. (1) The people of South Dakota find and declare that the Legislature's State Government Accountability Board did not fully respond to the people's demand for strong and accountable ethics oversight, in that:
Therefore, the people of South Dakota find and declare that they are best suited to create an ethics commission that can adequately protect the public trust, and hereby nullify the State Government Accountability Board created by the Legislature in 2017 in House Bill 1076 and in its place create a new State Government Accountability Board to serve as an independent citizen ethics commission. The State Government Accountability Board is as an independent entity, notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution of South Dakota, including Article 11, that shall be conducted in a nonpartisan manner with integrity, honesty, and fairness. Any rule adopted, investigation conducted, or sanction imposed by the board is subject to judicial review consistent with the Constitution. (2) All South Dakota registered voters are eligible to apply for membership on the board. Only registered voters may be members. The board shall be directed by seven members who are approved from those who have applied as follows:
No member of the board may be registered as a lobbyist or may hold any other local, state, or federal public office or political party office while serving as a member of the board. Each member shall have been continuously registered with the same political party, or continuously registered as unaffiliated with any political party, for the two years preceding appointment to the board. Each member of the board shall serve for a term of not more than four years, except that after the initial appointments are made, the secretary of state shall select, in a random public drawing, one member to serve a one-year term and two members each to serve two-year, three-year, and four-year terms, respectively, for each member's first term only, to achieve staggered ending dates. No member may serve more than two terms. Service of a term means service of more than two years of a term. Any vacancy shall be filled within seventy-five days in the manner in which that position was originally filled. If a vacancy is not filled within seventy-five days, the Supreme Court shall fill the vacancy within an additional sixty days. Initial members shall be appointed by September 1, 2019. If all seven initial members are not appointed by the date provided under this section, the Supreme Court shall appoint the remaining members by November 1, 2019. The secretary of state shall impartially facilitate the member appointment process. Members may be removed by the Governor, with the concurrence of the senate, only for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of office, after written notice and an opportunity for response. (3) The board has the power, notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, to:
(4) The board shall convene at least once every quarter. The assent of four members shall be required for the consideration and resolution of any matter that involves the exercise of the board's duties and powers under this Article, including the adoption or approval of any motion, procedure, provision, or appeal, the hiring of staff, the issuance of an advisory opinion, the referral to the appropriate prosecutorial authority of a complaint alleging a violation, and the imposition of sanctions, except that the assent of three members shall be required for the convening of meetings. the initiation and carrying out of investigations, including the issuance of subpoenas, the approval of public education materials, the approval of minutes of previous meetings, and actions related to board contracts. (5) Unless otherwise prohibited by federal or state law, any person acting in good faith may furnish information or file a complaint with the board. which may be anonymous, alleging a suspected or anticipated violation, and may request a status update to which the board shall respond in writing within sixty days. Any public employee may file a grievance with the Civil Service Commission, or other appropriate agency or entity, if the employee believes that there has been retaliation from his or her employer because the employee reported a violation through the chain of command of the employee's department, or to the board. (6) All final reports and findings shall be made available to the public within ten days of completion. The board shall annually report to the people on its activities. The report shall include comprehensive information concerning the board's activities, including the number of complaints received, complaints filed by separate persons, investigations conducted, hearings held, sanctions imposed, and advisory opinions issued. (7) On an annual basis beginning in 2020, the board shall issue to the Legislature written recommendations for legislation that seeks to increase public trust, transparency, and accountability in government and elections and decrease the risk of corruption and conflicts of interest. (8) Each member of the board shall complete a financial interest disclosure statement. Any member of the board who has a personal, private interest in a matter before the board or with a direct and substantially related interest in a matter before the board shall disclose the fact of such interest and recuse himself or herself from working on the matter, unless the board member's vote is necessary to resolve the matter. (9) The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by any circuit court. The board may intervene as a matter of right in any civil action involving any government entity, agency, or instrumentality alleged to be in violation of any mandate or prohibition under this Article, and in any civil action relating to the board's powers or to the sufficiency of resources provided for the board's implementation and operation. (10) The Legislature shall annually appropriate, via the general appropriation bill, three hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars, indexed to inflation, to a separate constitutional Ethics Law Enforcement Fund to be administered solely by the board. This appropriation via the general appropriation bill shall occur, and shall not be subject to item veto by the Governor, notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution. If the Legislature does not appropriate such funding by the beginning of the fiscal year, the state treasurer shall transfer this amount, less any amount so appropriated by the Legislature, from the state general fund to the Ethics Law Enforcement Fund as soon as such funds are available. The Legislature shall ensure that this money is available in the state general fund for the state treasurer to make such a transfer. This transfer shall occur notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution. Only the board may authorize the spending or transfer of moneys from the Ethics Law Enforcement Fund. The Legislature may appropriate additional funds to the Ethics Law Enforcement Fund or another fund for use by the board for its various expenses. While serving on business of the board, members shall receive reasonable travel expense reimbursement and per diem compensation. This provision shall be self-executing. §16. Terms used in this Article mean:
§17. Each provision of this Article is intended to be independent and severable, and if any provision is held to be invalid, either on its face or as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, the remaining provisions, and the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. In any case of a conflict between any provision of this Article and any other provision contained in this Constitution, the provisions of this Article shall control. §18. This Article is self-executing and shall take effect sixty days after approval. Each provision shall be justiciable and enforceable by any circuit court. Laws may be enacted to facilitate, safeguard, or expand. but not to hamper, restrict, or impair, the powers this Article grants and the protections it establishes. Section 1 of Article III of the South Dakota Constitution The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a Legislature which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state The people also expressly reserve the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state and approved by a simple majority of those voting on the question before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions, for which the Legislature shall state specific facts evidencing such necessity. No law substantively changing the rules, requirements, or criteria governing the initiative or referendum process may take effect until after that law has been submitted to a vote of the electors of the state and approved by a simple majority of those voting on the question. Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum. This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure. The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to Section 4. Each provision of this Amendment is intended to be independent and severable, and if any provision is held to be invalid, either on its face or as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, the remaining provisions, and the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.[5] |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support
Represent South Dakota of Represent.Us led the campaign in support of the initiative.[6] Former Reps. Mitch Richter (R-11) and Darrell Solberg (D-11) served as the campaign's co-chairs.[7][8]
Arguments
- Former Reps. Mitch Richter (R-11) and Darrell Solberg (D-11), who served as the Represent South Dakota's co-chairs, said, "Some politicians in Pierre are claiming we’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They say IM-22 was only passed by S.D. voters by a narrow margin and current laws should be left as is. South Dakotans should continue to remind them that ‘Under God, the People Rule,’ is our state motto. It’s time to reclaim it. This amendment protects voters from legislative meddling. By giving the voters the final say, the amendment will protect the initiative process, as well as laws passed by the voters through that process, with strong clauses to prevent legislative tampering."[9]
- Doug Kronaizl, spokesperson for Represent South Dakota, stated, "This is about protecting the will of the people. It's about standing up to establishment politicians and returning power to everyday South Dakotans."[10]
Opposition
Opponents
- Americans for Prosperity - South Dakota[11]
- South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry[12]
- Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce[12]
- South Dakota Bankers Association[12]
- South Dakota Farm Bureau[12]
- South Dakota Municipal League[12]
- South Dakota Retailers Association[12]
- AGC of South Dakota Highway Heavy Utility Chapter[12]
Arguments
- Don Haggar, president of Americans for Prosperity - South Dakota, said he was concerned that the initiative's commission would act as a fourth branch of government with no check and balance, according to the Associated Press.[11]
- David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the ethics commission would have a "scope of power that's kind of unbelievable." Owen said, "We're wandering into territory that's completely unheard of. I think they're going to whoop up a false impression that South Dakota is massively corrupt."[12]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $1,140,330.67 |
| Opposition: | $230,816.11 |
Ballotpedia identified one ballot measure committee, Represent South Dakota, registered in support of the measure. The committee had raised $1.14 million and spent $1.25 million including in-kind services. The top donors were Represent.Us ($390,440) and End Citizens United ($12,609).[3][4]
Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to oppose the measure: South Dakota Republican Ballot Question Committee, (which had not reported any campaign finance activity) and W is Wrong, which raised $230,816.11 in contributions and spent it all.[4]
Support
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the top donors in support of Amendment W:[3]
- Note: Some information regarding specific donors was not included in filed reports, which means the information below could be incomplete.
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Represent.Us | $280,500.00 | $109,939.99 | $390,439.99 |
| End Citizens United | $184,900.00 | $27,709.09 | $212,609.09 |
| Jon DeVaan | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Jeffrey Abrams | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Kathleen McGrath | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Todd Dipaola | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Opposition
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the top donors in support of Amendment W:[3]
- Note: Some information regarding specific donors was not included in filed reports, which means the information below could be incomplete.
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota Chamber Ballot Action Committee | $119,300.00 | $0.00 | $119,300.00 |
| Americans for Prosperity | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| South Dakota Bankers Association | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
| SDREA | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
- See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements
Support
Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Amendment W. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opposition
- The Argus Leader wrote: "Questions regarding the presumed transparency of the new board concern us, and the proposed amendment seems more effective as a strong rebuke to state legislators than as a thoughtfully crafted permanent change to the state’s constitution."[13]
Background
Repeal of 2016 Initiative 22
In 2016, South Dakota approved Initiated Measure 22 by a margin of 51.63 percent to 48.37 percent. In January 2017, the South Dakota State Legislature voted 54-13 in the House and 27-8 in the Senate to repeal Initiative 22, and Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed the repeal bill on February 2, 2017. Initiative 22 was sponsored by South Dakotans for Integrity, and Represent.Us provided the campaign with $1 million in contributions—which amounted to 57 percent of the campaign's funding. Represent South Dakota, the group behind this initiative, is associated with Represent.Us. This 2018 initiative, Amendment W, was an initiated constitutional amendment, which could not have been repealed by the legislature without voter approval had it passed. It was filed in response to the repeal of Initiative 22.[2]
Initiative 22 had the following provisions:[14]
- It would have created a publicly funded campaign finance system according to which registered voters would have received two $50 credits and could have assigned them to any candidate who was eligible. To be eligible to receive the credits, candidates would have had to agree to limit their campaign's contributions and expenditures.
- It would have created an ethics commission to run the public campaign finance program and enforce restrictions on campaign finance and lobbying.
- It would have prevented a number of state officials and the staff of state officials from lobbying until at least two years after leaving state office.
- It would have placed caps on any gifts and favors from lobbyists to state officials and their staff.
The accountability board established in 2017
An ethics and accountability board was established by the South Dakota State Legislature through House Bill 1076 in 2017. It was passed during the 2017 session and signed into law by the governor on March 10, 2017. The accountability board established by House Bill 1076 was designed to have four members serving five-year terms appointed by the governor with confirmation from the senate. The law required that no more than two of these members be members of the same political party. The board established under House Bill 1076 was not given authority over legislators or legislative staff; it was designed to have jurisdiction over the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, public utilities commissioner, and all employees of the executive branch of government.[15]
This initiative—Constitutional Amendment W—was designed to replace the accountability board established through House Bill 1076 with the board described above.[1]
Ethics commissions in other states
As of 2018, 39 states have an independent ethics commission with authority over the state legislature. Seven states had an ethics commission without authority over the state legislature. Six states had no independent commission; with four of these relying on legislative ethics committees. Wyoming did not have an ethics commission or an ethics committee within the legislature. North Dakota had an interim Legislative Ethics Committee which was a part of the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee.[16]
2016 initiatives amended or repealed by legislatures
- See also: Aftermath of 2016 ballot measures and Legislative alteration
As of 2018, South Dakota was one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or with what majority the legislature can amend or repeal initiated state statutes. A total of 21 states feature a process for initiated state statutes. Of those, California and Arizona had laws preventing the legislature from amending or repealing initiated statutes without voter approval. Eight other states had laws restricting how soon and/or with what majority state legislatures can amend or repeal initiated states.
The amendment or repeal of initiated constitutional amendments, such as this initiative, require voter ratification in each of the 18 states with a process for initiative amendments because, in all states but Delaware, any constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature require voter ratification.[17]
| Examples of legislatures changing or repealing 2016 initiatives or considering such changes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election policy on the ballot in 2018
|
|
 |
|
Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.
Redistricting:
- See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot
- Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018)
- The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.
- Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.
- Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.
- Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.
- Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.
- Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.
Voting requirements and ballot access:
- Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.
- Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.
- Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.
- Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.
- Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.
- Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.
- Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.
- North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.
- North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.
Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.
Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:
- Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.
- Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.
- Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.
- North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.
- South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.
- South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.
Path to the ballot
In South Dakota, supporters must send proposed initiatives to the South Dakota Legislative Research Council (LRC) for review. Proponents then send the proposal to the attorney general's office to have a ballot title and summary drafted. This information is forwarded to the secretary of state. Supporters can start signature collection as early as two years before the targeted election, and signatures must be submitted at least one year before the targeted election. Signature requirements in South Dakota are based on the total number of votes cast in the state's most recent gubernatorial election. A number of signatures equal to 10 percent of this total is necessary for qualifying initiated constitutional amendments for the 2018 ballot. Supporters needed to collect and submit at least 27,741 valid signatures by November 6, 2017, in order to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the 2018 ballot.
The South Dakota Legislative Research Council received drafts of the proposed initiative on April 21, 2017.[18] Proponents of the initiative then sent the measure to the attorney general's office. On June 19, 2017, the attorney general drafted a ballot title and summary for the initiative.[19] On July 6, 2017, the example of a petition that would be used to gather signatures was received by the secretary of state.[1] The campaign in support of the initiative began hosting events to train signature gatherers on July 15, 2017.[20]
On August 16, 2017, Doug Kronaizl, spokesperson for Represent South Dakota, said the campaign collected around 16,400 signatures as of August 12.[21] On October 16, 2017, KELO reported that initiative proponents had collected more than 50,000 signatures.[22]
On October 18, 2017, Represent South Dakota reported submitting over 50,000 signatures. The group needs 27,741 of those signatures to valid to qualify the initiative for the November 2018 ballot.[23]
The secretary of state's office certified the measure for the ballot on December 29, 2017. The deadline to challenge approval of the measure for the ballot was January 29, 2018. [24][25]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired unknown recipients to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $275,008.50 was spent to collect the 27,741 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.91.[3]
Related measures
| Direct democracy measures measures on the ballot in 2018 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Florida | Florida Amendment 3: Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative
|
| California | California Proposition 71: Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment
|
| [[2018 ballot measures|]] | [[South Dakota Constitutional Amendment X, 55% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2018)|]] |
| South Dakota | South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Z, Single-Subject Rule for Constitutional Amendments
|
| South Dakota | South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative / |
See also
External links
Support |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Initiative Title & Official Petition," accessed July 10, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 South Dakota Legislature, "House Bill 1069," January 24, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Represent South Dakota," accessed October 26, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Reporting System," accessed January 26, 2019
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Represent South Dakota, "Homepage," accessed December 27, 2017
- ↑ Represent SD, "Home," accessed February 26, 2018
- ↑ Vermillion Plain Talk, "Anti-Corruption Petition Drive Races For Deadline," September 1, 2017
- ↑ Argus Leader, "My Voice: Anti-Corruption Amendment gathering support," July 26, 2017
- ↑ U.S. News, "After Repeal, Ethics Law Supporters to Push Ballot Amendment," April 6, 2017
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Argus Leader, "Ethics amendment campaign submits signatures for 2018 ballot," October 18, 2017
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 Pilot Online,"Critics concerned about power of initiative's ethics panel," accessed July 5, 2018
- ↑ The Argus Leader, "Vote yes for Randy Seiler, no on Amendment W," accessed November 4, 2018
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "House Bill 1076," accessed February 20, 2018
- ↑ North Dakota Legislature, "Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee, Interim Committee Studies and Assignments," accessed September 4, 2018
- ↑ There are a few rare exceptions to this; for example, some constitutional amendments in certain states can explicitly allow other specific amendments by the legislature without voter approval.
- ↑ South Dakota Attorney General, "LRC Comments," April 21, 2017
- ↑ South Dakota Attorney General, "Attorney General Statement," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Ethics amendment backers to start push to get on 2018 ballot," July 11, 2017
- ↑ South Dakota Public Broadcasting, "Groups Says They’re Halfway To Placing Anti-Corruption Amendment On Ballot," August 16, 2017
- ↑ KELO, "IM-22 2.0 reaches signature milestone," October 16, 2017
- ↑ Lexington Heral Leader, "Ethics amendment campaign submits signatures for 2018 ballot," October 18, 2017
- ↑ http://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2018-ballot-questions.aspx South Dakota Secretary of State, "2018 Ballot Questions," accessed December 29, 2017]
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Ethics measure approved to be on South Dakota's 2018 ballot," December 29, 2017
 |
State of South Dakota Pierre (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
