Last updated on 2014.01.21
Senate Bill 65 revises the rules for road district elections. Road districts are special governmental subdivisions authorized by South Dakota law to levy taxes and spend money to build and maintain roads outside of established municipalities. Road districts are formed and trustees, the decision makers of such districts, are elected by popular vote of registered voters or, in the absence of registered voters, landowners in such districts.
Senate Bill 65 changes those rules to limit voting on road district issues to landowners. And SB 65 says that includes corporations:
As used in this chapter, the term, eligible voter, has the meaning specified in this section. Only persons or public corporations that are landowners of land located within the proposed or existing road district are eligible to vote in the formation election or any subsequent election of a road district, except as provided in this chapter. An eligible voter may reside within or outside the district. Any firm, partnership, limited liability company, association, estate, or corporation that holds title to land located within the proposed or existing road district is entitled to one vote and may designate an officer or agent to vote on its behalf by presenting a written instrument to that effect to the election officials. The vote of any eligible voter who is a minor or a protected person as defined by § 29A-5-102, may be cast by the parent, conservator, or legal representative of the minor or protected person [2014 Senate Bill 65].
Corporations get to vote. Kids, too. But only if they own land.
Corporations get to vote. Is there any precedent in South Dakota law for granting such a fundamental right to a legal fiction? And if we allow corporations to vote in road district elections, do we open the door for corporations to lobby for a direct vote in other elections?
Any korporations on death row,seeing as to how Citizen's United bestowed the same rights as individuals have?
I wonder if this passes what effect a constitutional amendment would have on this.
Al Franken has a petition out there to overturn Citizens United.
http://www.alfranken.com/landing/w1311cu/?subsource=CK-AF-CU-A05-FB-FBLP.D-FKW.OCPM-NA-KSK-BO-18p-A101.C5.T5.P1
Taking this bill out to its logical extreme.
Under this law, is there anything preventing Citizen Brown from casting one ballot because s/he owns home acreage and then casting a second ballot for a family corporation founded to farm land with parents, and then a third ballot for land owned in partnership with a child?
The idea of 1 person = 1 vote seems to have taken a Chicago twist.
Also, if the corporation can vote, why can't it run for office?
Very good questions. Kal Lis, I see nothing here that prevents double or triple voting. Heck, divide the property among your five kids, form a shadow corporation for each quarter section of your big farm, and you get to cast twenty votes.
Running for office: I didn't see qualifications for trustees in the existing statutes (SDCL 31-12A) or in SB 65. I may have missed them and invite closer reading. But might there be some other statutes in other chapters that set general qualifications for candidates for local office? Someone had better check before passing this bill, or we might end up with Monsanto as president of a local road district.
It's fairly easy to see the hierarchy of who the GOP in Pierre serves:
1. Business
2. Themselves & their cronies
3. Ideologues
4. The citizens of South Dakota
This isn't new. The quoted language comes right out of section 46A-14-15.1 regarding watershed districts. Corporations can also vote in irrigation districts under 46A-4-2.
The reason for this is that these special purpose districts have very limited functions, but also have the ability to impose property taxes. Road districts only build and maintain roads where counties, towns or townships aren't doing it. Should five or six residents be able to raise the property taxes of everyone around them simply because they want two miles of asphalt instead of their current gravel road? Under current law, that's very possible.
The purpose of this is to allow those who will pay for the improvements to have a say in whether the improvements get made, regardless of whether they live in the district. The one person/one vote rules generally doesn't apply to these special districts.
Perhaps we need to look at this another way, based on Eric's post. The State of SD has done an atrocious job of highway and or infrastructure maintenance, especially in rural areas. First is this just a way of passing the buck to local governments to take care of roads, so that the State can continue to sit on the billions in rainy day funds. Second those on the right scream like a banshee because of the counties wanting to raise the liquor tax to pay for their increased law enforcement costs related to the use of liquor, so the counties certainly would have a hard time addressing these costs of road and bridge maintenance.
It is just one more way of the State passing the buck, as we have let them get by with for not funding education as mandated by the State's Constitution. The only thing the State seems to think it can and should spend on is economic development.
This is probably another way for stinking feedlots to get better roads to their manure piles paid for by taxpayers.
Is the Noem "ranch" a corporation?
I think that you are mostly correct Lanny with the exception of economic development. South Dakota clearly does not want to pay for the either, they want the EB-5 Chinese to pony up those dollars, even the Egg Roll said that more or less.
I am a member of a combined road/sanitary district board. The laws of sanitary districts specifically require board members be resident of the district. There is also a requirement that voters in state elections be a resident of the district in which they vote. I'm not sure how they intend to get around that.
12-1-4 Criteria for determining voting residence.
They get around that state election requirement by making this special "eligible voter" apply only to the chapter on road districts. Corporations won't be able to vote for governor, but when they send their reps to the polls, those reps will be able to take the separate ballot just for the road district.
So can I form a corporation and vote twice?
Under this law, in your local road district, yes. I'm not kidding.
The problem for our combination district is that there is no separate election for the board of the sanitary district and the board of the road district. There is one election for a person to be on the board that covers both.
Another problem is getting people to serve on the boards. I know of a number of special districts that have board members that have twenty years or more on the board. No one runs for a board seat and the sitting member serves another term. I can envision the corporate vote blocking things and existing board members leaving because they cannot govern their district for the good of their customers as a whole.