Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 82 Nuts and Bolts: Money, Signatures, and a Trick on Secretary of State!

I've written up Senator Stanford Adelstein's case for Senate Bill 82, his proposal to put all statewide offices on the primary ballot and to change the election for secretary of state. In a nutshell, the bill recognizes that the Web and online press make more direct democracy possible.

Now let's talk about three key aspects of this bill: the money involved in primary races, the error in SB 82's signature requirements, and a neat trick played by Sen. Adelstein to put a larger spotlight on secretary of state elections.

Money in Politics: Worse at Polls or Convention?

Republican blogger Pat Powers frets that making candidates for attorney general, secretary of state, PUC, and other statewide offices will increase the influence of big money in our elections. Reread that: Pat Powers, who resigned from the secretary of state's office after violating basic ethics by selling his for-profit political campaign services while working in the state office that perhaps most requires non-partisan ethical behavior, who works for country-club Republican Dan Lederman, frets that Stan Adelstein may be jiggering state law to give his own money more sway in our elections. Wow—Powers's personal grudge against Adelstein is clearly impacting his already minimal ability to make a coherent argument.

It is true that requiring statewide candidates to run the primary gauntlet will raise the price of campaigning. At the very least, candidates will have to spend more time and money to gather petition signatures statewide than they now spend hobnobbing for votes at convention (more on petitions in a moment). But isn't it just as likely that big-money candidates can sway their fellow convention-goers as they can sway an entire electorate? The money disadvantage is not unique to SB 82.

Signatures: Twice as Hard for AG, SOS as for SHS

What is unique is the signature requirement SB 82 imposes on the statewide candidates it addresses. Right now, candidates for Governor and Congress must gather a number of signatures equal to one percent of the general election vote total of their party's last gubernatorial candidate. For Republicans right now, that number is 1,950; for Dems, 1,220.

SB 82 appears to set a different standard for candidates for attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, and public utilities commissioner. Section 6 of the bill says that to make the primary ballot, these candidates must file petitions "signed by a number of registered voters not less than one percent of the total combined vote cast for Governor at the most recent certified gubernatorial election." Total combined vote. If I'm reading this right, that means that someone running for the nearly invisible school and public lands seat in 2014 will have to gather 3,170 signatures, 2.6 times as many signatures as Stephanie Herseth Sandlin will need to gather for whichever more monumental office she runs for (please, Stephanie? pretty please?). SB 82's signature requirement should be brought in line with the primary requirements for Governor and Congress.

Kroll 2016: Moving SOS Vote to Presidential Year

The fun in SB 82 lies in the changes it makes to the election of secretary of state. Remember, SB 82 as originally written was part of Senator Adelstein's response to the corruption and incompetence of Secretary of State Jason Gant. Gant accomplice Pat Powers pooped his pants over another Adelstein proposal along those lines, and Senate Stae Affairs canned that other proposal. Senator Adelstein originally wanted SB 82 to make secretary of state a non-partisan office, elected by run-off between the top two vote-getters in an open-to-all primary, regardless of political affiliation.

Senator Adelstein amended those juicy bits out of SB 82 Friday, but he kept one bit of special treatment for the secretary of state. While South Dakota elects its governor and most statewide officials in non-presidential election years, Section 1 of SB 82 throws the secretary of state's election into presidential election years, starting in 2016. That clause means that when we draft former Brookings debate coach Judy Kroll to kick Jason Gant out of office in 2014, she'll have to run again in 2016. That clause also would deprive secretary of state candidates of gubernatorial coattails. It might mean that the secretary of state's race would be able to grab a bigger chunk of local press coverage, especially if South Dakota's red-Whitopian presidential vote remains a foregone conclusion.

The Senate needs to fix SB 82's inequitable signature requirements to pass muster. We could also stand to hear more about the cost impacts it will have, not so much on the state as on the campaign finance needs of candidates seeking those second-tier state offices. Moving the secretary of state's election year and giving Pat Powers indigestion are just gravy. The aim of increasing democratic participation in selecting our statewide candidates overcomes my fear of agreeing with Russ Olson and makes me offer a qualified Aye to Senate Bill 82.

10 Comments

  1. grudznick 2013.02.17

    Aye indeed, but aye fear that Mr. Stan legislaturing so much right up State Secretary Gant's maw will doom this fine idea with nays from the establishment cronies.

    Mr. Gant seems to bounce back like one of those old blow-up punching clowns from the 60s that had a sand counterweight in the bottom making them stand back up and boof your kid right back.

  2. Rorschach 2013.02.17

    I had one of those blow up punching dolls. I could pound the crap out of it and jump on it. Never popped.

    If Republican bloggers don't like this bill it must be o.k. Sen. Stan doesn't win every battle, but he certainly got the upper hand on Pat Powers forcing him out of his cushy government job. Regardless of the outcome of this bill, I bet Sen. Stan will have Gant out next. Maybe Sen. Stan should run for Secretary of State and be that straight shooter that the office deserves.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.02.17

    Stan has a lot on his plate. I'll be content if Stan finds a competent challenger to bankroll for a serious campaign against Gant's mismanagement and untrustworthiness.

  4. Michael Black 2013.02.17

    If our current SOS has done so much wrong, why has he not been charged?

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.02.17

    If Bill Janklow killed a man, why didn't he go the pen for life?

  6. Rorschach 2013.02.17

    Incompetence and blatant partisan hackism aren't necessarily criminal offenses, Michael Black. They are, however, good reasons to replace an office holder at the next opportunity.

  7. Testor15 2013.02.17

    MB, our ALEC paid for AG, Mr Jackley, decided to investigate another ALEC alumni Jason (and PP) for money issues never brought up in the expose'. This 'investigation' had the appearance of protecting Jason so he could continue the efforts of ALEC in the statehouse. It was never about money. It had everything to do with the multiple ethical lapses / issues while running the office for person power gain.

  8. mike 2013.02.17

    Gant is a sitting duck in 2014. The real question is does anyone of any stature come forth and challenge him?

    I think most of us would like to see Gant gone but that is always easier said then done. Look at Obama the last election. Not much is going right and he still won. Look at Clinton or Bush in '04.

    If Gant wins in 2014 it will be something we can accept because getting someone out of office is much harder to do.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.02.18

    There's got to be some ambitious, tech-savvy county auditor out there, or a debate coach with tab room experience (that's why I mention Judy Kroll).

Comments are closed.