The South Dakota Legislature continues to blur the lines defining who can vote where. Senate Bill 73, sponsored by Sen. Tim Begalka (R-4/Clear Lake), allows parents of open-enrolled students to vote in their chosen school's elections and to run for school board. Here's the relevant clause of the proposed legislation:
A parent who is a nonresident of a school district may vote in the nonresident school district election or may be a candidate for elective school board membership if the parent has two or more children who reside in the parent's household and the children attend the nonresident school district... [2014 Senate Bill 73].
Current statute requires that voters and candidates in school board elections be residents of the school district. They must either live in the district at least 30 days a year, be full-time university or vo-tech students who lived in the district right before leaving for school, or serve overseas in the military but maintain a home in the district.
Allowing all parents of children in a school a voice in managing the school seems reasonable. But Senator Begalka's two-child criterion is curious. Why disenfranchise a parent like me, who has just one child? I have difficulty thinking of a legal statute that will deny a voting right to a citizen based solely on their reproductivity.
Also problematic is the opening of South Dakota elections to out-of-state residents. Minnesotans, North Dakotans, and other near neighbors can open-enroll their children in our border schools. SB 73 is not specific to South Dakota residents. Is Secretary of State Jason Gant ready to do cross-state voter registration records? And are our neighboring states ready to cooperate with the bookkeeping our invitation to their residents to vote will require?
Senate Bill 73 is worth discussing, but it may require some serious amendment to pass constitutional and practical muster.
That's bizarre in my opinion. It just dissolves the constitutional qualifications for participation in elections. Similar requirements could be attached to elections for county commissioner, for example. How about a requirement that if you own property in the county, you can vote in that county's election?
At the surface, this doesn't sound like a bad idea. I can believe it passes constitutional muster.
Of course, given the source, I'm not surprised.
Hell, if I live in Hill City but I work and spend 90 percent of my sales taxes in Rapid City, they I should be able to run for mayor or city council in Rapid City, right? The last thing anyone needs is someone from out of my school district setting policy and increasing school budgets (and my property taxes) in my district. This is just plain stupid policy.
Somebody needs to send Timmy Boy back to high school government class so he can get this straight.
Ridiculous. Totally unconstitutional and anti-American.
I like the idea in principle, I think it should be one child, and the out of state residents is problematic.
This is so stupid Stace. If you allow someone that lives outside off your school district to hold office and vote in your board elections aren't you really saying to hell with the people that actually live there?
Would the good people that vote in the school board elections where these scammers actually live allow some person that doesn't live there to vote in theirs?
Could you please give a reason for thinking this bill would accomplish anythig good.
The Blindman
Consider that the criteria for voting seems to be different for different people. The bill provides the person with children in one district, but living in another, with superior rights to others. That person get to vote in two districts, while a taxpayer without children only gets to vote in one district. This violates one person, one vote.
It's also a slippery slope to taking voting rights away from anyone without children.
Also, it's an invitation for massive voter fraud.
Don that's exactly right. And if those people that don't have children also happen to pay taxes it would violate "no taxation without representation."
Wouldn't that be representation without taxation?
The Blindman
Donald Pay, good points. Until these bills are passed, they are malleable and we can address such issues. With the open enrollment issue, comes issues of representation for those families that avail themselves of the opportunity to have their child(ren) in a school of their choice. I support school choice by the parents, by extension I support also their right to have a decision in their representation on school boards.
Rep. Nelson, you represent a number of voters in District 19 who have chosen to register their RV's in Alexandria while they travel the U.S. Do you support their right to choose which school district they vote in? If they register their RVs in Alexandria, should they still be able to say, "Know what? I'd rather vote in elections in Salem, or Mitchell, or Rapid City?" How much choice do we get, beyond our choice of residence, in where we vote?
You would have to be a special kind of stupid to support SB-73.
When political candidates meet citizenship and residency qualifications that is all that should be required.
Why is this legislature so intent on usurping the right to vote and run for political office.
SB-73 needs to be buried.
I would gladly eliminate the two-child question by simply amending the word "two" to "one". It was put in there to put some restriction on it , such as a family with 4 kids and the parents decide to vote in "district A" where one child attends, rather than vote in "district B" where the other 3 attend. That leads to the next answer to Pay's false assumptions: the bill clearly states that the parent(s) may only vote in one district. Also, SD voting laws have no bearing on non-SD residents. The out-of-state question is moot, but I would gladly clarify it in the bill to make it perfectly clear.
Sen. I'm fine with that as long as it's the district in which they live. After all, I don't have any children and I still pay taxes in this district. Shouldn't I have more to say then someone that doesn't even live here?
The Blandman
Thank you, Senator Begalka, for that clarification. But Donald's concern about special voting rights seems to remain valid. SB 73 confers a special voting privilege on one class of citizens, those with children. If this privilege should be conferred at all, why not also confer it to grandparents with a keen interest in their grandkids' school, or maybe alumni wishing to keep a finger in their alma mater's affairs?
Is there any other case in which the state confers voting rights on any subset of citizens based on the fact that they have children?
The reason I am considering letting non-resident parents vote in a school election is because they are the ones responsible for their children open-enrolling into the district. Schools receive their state-aid based on the number of students enrolled. So they are bringing kids and money into the district .
Cory, it's not just people with children that are selected out. It seems to be just certain people with children.
Begalka is selecting lots of people out of the special rights he's giving to others.
Can a divorced father who has joint custody and who lives in the Custer school district and whose child lives and goes to school in Rapid City vote in Rapid City election? What about if the divorced father lives in Sioux Falls?
There are so many families now that have main caregivers being grandparents or aunts or are in foster care or have other custody arrangements. These people seem not to be considered in this legislation.
And this will be a bureaucratic nightmare to keep track of and police, especially when there is multi-county school switches.
Bad, bad bill.
What really would be preferable is to force some consolidation of school districts to reduce costs.
Sen. Begalka. Can you tell us what the unintended consequences of this bill are? I don't think that Pierre spends a lot of time looking beyond the feel good of any bill.
Jana, actually I feel most bills get plenty of scrutiny as they pass through the 5 steps needed to become law. That's why a majority of bills fail. I don't see any bad consequences. It will take the county auditors just a few minutes to make the switch for the voter, and everything is automated now.
It's not as clear to me the need to give parents voting rights in a school to which their students have open-enrolled. I've always felt like open-enrollment is a sort of privilege we grant to folks who want to take advantage of it, not some sort of fundamental right (the fundamental right, in my mind, is to public education, which is provided at its most basic levels by the existence of school districts covering the entirety of the state). Parents making the choice to open-enroll their students are theoretically weighing the options they have available and deciding that what is available in the open-enrolled-to district is preferable to what's available in their "home" district. They're making that decision now, without the ability to affect the school through voting in that district's elections. I don't understand why we need to grant a special privilege of voting in non-home school districts when the ability to put your student in a district other than the one that's provided in one's home community is in many ways its own privilege already.
Senator, Donald's concerns should give anyone pause. It's disconcerting that you can't see those unintended consequences.
Rick said, "Somebody needs to send Timmy Boy back to high school government class so he can get this straight." Really made me laugh because I'm wondering if I was one of Tim's teachers!
Tim, did you attend Deubrook School in White in the late 1970s? I remember some Begalka children. I taught junior high and high school social studies classes 1976-80. When did you graduate?
Deb, I attended school in Clear Lake. I graduated from there in 1978. Those were my 2nd cousins, Alan and Jim, at Deubrook. (PS- I always got straight A's in government)
Ohhh, you were/are a Cardinal! I thought there was a Barb Begalka. Yes?/No?
I had a great time at Deubrook. If I had known then what I know now, I would have stayed there much longer. Next time I visit from MN, I ought to go through that neighborhood again. Go from White up through Toronto and on to Clear Lake. Nice country.
Yes Deb, their sisters are Barb and Jan. I run the greenhouse/nursery/floral shop on the highway just south of Clear Lake. Stop in anytime !
Senator,were you there the night the music died,or do I have the wrong Clear Lake? Just kidding.
I'll do that. Thanks for the invitation.