Bob Mercer reports that the National Popular Vote movement is bailing on its effort to put a measure on the South Dakota 2012 ballot to kill the Electoral College. The measure didn't gain much traction in the South Dakota Legislature (thanks in no small part to out-of-state noodleheads coming to insult us); apparently, the NPV folks didn't see much more chance of a return on investment with the general electorate.
I sense some satisfaction from Mercer, as he portrays the national popular vote proposal as a plan for states "to disregard the U.S. Constitution." And we all know them's fightin' words around these Tea-drinkin' parts!
In perhaps another sign of his disdain for the NPV movement, Mercer offers this anti-democratic suggestion:
The downside is that NPV wasted some of South Dakota's public resources in getting the ballot measure ready. The Legislative Research Council had completed its review and state Attorney General Marty Jackley already had the official ballot explanation ready, and then there's the time that Secretary of State Jason Gant and his staff spent on the preparatory work. Maybe the Legislature should require a bond be filed when these efforts start, with the bond released if the measure actually makes the ballot [Bob Mercer, "Poof! for the National Popular Vote Initiative," Pure Pierre Politics, 2011.09.13].
Charge people for access to the ballot? Isn't that like a poll tax? Or a pre-poll tax?
The initiative and referendum system already has sufficiently high prices for entry. Groups seeking to place measures on the ballot have to round up volunteers, walk neighborhoods, and drive all over a pretty big state to get thousands of valid signatures. To require them to put up cash at the beginning of their campaigns would sap vital campaign resources and stymie less well-heeled groups from pursuing ballot measures.
Our taxes pay for the services of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, just as they pay for elections. I can't imagine productivity in the offices of Messrs. Jackley and Gant declined all too terribly because a couple more citizens walked in and asked for help with ballot initiatives. Some ballot initiatives and referenda leave you queasy (or, in the opinion of our Governor, downright "disgusted"), but we do not face a major fiscal crisis from lots of saboteurs filing bogus ballot measures to bog down the Pierre bureaucracy.
Yes, a few state employees did some work on ballot measures that went nowhere. Chalk that up to the price of participatory democracy, and move on.
There are two problems, one of which can't be solved.
First, the hijacking of South Dakota's initiative and referendum process by national groups with an agenda and a bankroll is something that I and others had been concerned about for years. Many of us searched for ways to limit these efforts through campaign finance reform or banning paid petition circulators. These solutions and others are blocked by US Supreme Court decisions that equate money, particularly corporate money, to speech. I don't think this issue can be solved short of an amendment to the US Constitution.
The second issue, that of costs to taxpayers of withdrawn ballot measures, can be solved. The SD Legislature has gone completely overboard in front-loading the initiative/referendum process with useless and costly bureaucratic b.s. They did this at the behest of powerful special interests in the state in order to discourage South Dakota citizens from using the I & R process. There were some simple changes in the I & R process they could have made that would have proved less costly, but provided South Dakota citizens some drafting help. They opted otherwise. Now they have to pay the cost.
Good points, Donald! I will agree that those outside groups hijacking our process is a problem -- democracy should be about what We the People want, and in this case, the people and the process should be all South Dakotan. But a fee or bond for starting the process would only favor those big-money outsiders further. I'd like to see and try your solutions, Donald!
All circulators should be SD residents and/or voters. Presently many paid circulators are brought in from other states. Otherwise everyone involved should just back off-let the process work. Those in power who want to shelve the process need to quit being so insecure. Collecting signatures is a long and tedious process. Before any legislator votes to restict the process they should stand at a street corner in the cold rain holding a clip board. See what is like first hand. It's not a piece of cake.
I agree with Charlie. SD voting residency should be a requirement to circulate a petition. My guess is a federal court would strike that down as interfering in "free speech" and other rights of corporations. Besides SD residency wouldn't be that hard to establish. The big money boys could just hire SD residents.
I also agree with Charlie that it isn't all that easy to collect enough signatures on a petition unless you've got a pretty hot issue and/or are very well organized.
Mercer's suggestion, if the Legislature is dumb enough to enact it, would likely be referred and lose. If by some fluke it won, it would likely be struck down by a federal court, as well.
Actually, I think the current requirements placed on sponsors of initiatives might be skating pretty close to being violations of the US and South Dakota Constitutions. I wonder if someone will eventually just say, "Eff you, with your stinking bureaucratic nonsense, we're taking this to court."
Funny thing about the National Popular Vote is that we have some very prominent Republicans against it because it would cut into the highly influential 3 electoral votes that we have from South Dakota.
The opposite is happening in Pennsylvania, which is normally Democratic.
Imagine this, the Democrats are against it! Of course the stakes are a little higher there.
Go figure.