Political Smokeout

Amendments coming to campaign finance bill

Senate Bill 200, to tighten South Dakota’s campaign finance laws after last year’s robocalls, hasn’t yet had a dissenting vote in its journey through the Legislature. But its march toward passage hit a temporary delay Monday morning when members of the House State Affairs Committee proposed several possible changes to the bill.

Some of the changes were cleanup, making sure that phrases about penalties were included in all sections and not just some. Others were more substantive — several committee members worried that people could bypass the disclosure requirements by running an email campaign themselves, so therefore incurring no or minimal cost.

Secretary of State Jason Gant said he was amenable to the mentioned changes, but encouraged the committee to view the bill as a step forward even if it didn’t fix every problem.

“When folks want to get around campaign finance laws, they’re going to dig, dig, dig and find a way,” Gant said.

After a number of proposed amendments were mentioned, committee chair Rep. David Lust announced that he was postponing action on the bill until Wednesday to give lawmakers times to draft amendments.

SD considers abolishing runoffs but delays them instead

The federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act requires states give at least 45 days of absentee voting for federal elections to deployed service members and overseas citizens.

That’s a problem for South Dakota, which has a statute providing for runoff elections for Senate, House and governor three weeks after the June primaries.

The runoff election applies if no candidate gets at least 35 percent of the vote in the primary. In that case, the top two vote-getters in the first round advance to a head-to-head face-off for the nomination.

Three weeks is 21 days, less than half what the federal government required.

Sen. Mark Kirkeby, R-Rapid City, and Rep. Blaine Campbell, R-Rapid City, submitted House Bill 1170, which sought to address that problem by repealing South Dakota’s runoff elections.

That would have meant the top vote-getter in divided primaries won without a runoff, no matter how low their percentage of the vote was.

It’s unclear when the last such runoff was, if South Dakota has ever had one.

Since the runoff system was created in 1985, South Dakota has never had a primary runoff election, Secretary of State Jason Gant writes.

But this morning, Kirkeby submitted an amendment — subsequently adopted by the House State Affairs Committee — that significantly changed the bill.

Instead of abolishing the runoff elections, the amended version of HB 1170 now simply schedules the runoff election for 10 weeks after the primary.

The amendment was supported by Deputy Secretary of State Patricia Miller.

In 2012, the primary was on June 5. Any runoff election would have been held three weeks later, on June 26. If the revised form of HB 1170 applied, that hypothetical primary would instead be held on Aug. 14.

That’s a much shorter general election season should that ever occur, and possibly an advantage for a candidate who wins outright in June while the other party has a runoff.

But South Dakota elections often see relatively quiet summer campaigns that only pick up in August and September, and runoffs are extremely rare in statewide elections, so the actual impact could be minimal.

The amended version of HB 1170 passed unanimously out of committee and now heads to the House floor.

Make secretary of state elections nonpartisan?

Sen. Stan Adelstein’s second bill trying to reform the secretary of state’s office, after banning some political activity there, is to make the office officially nonpartisan. (All this is instead of Adelstein’s first, now-abandoned, idea for going after Secretary of State Jason Gant, who he really does not like, by impeaching him.)

How would that work?

In Adelstein’s draft proposal, candidates would gather signatures to run for secretary of state in the primary election, as usual, except without reference to political parties. In the June primary every year, voters would cast a ballot for whichever candidate they most preferred.

The top two vote-getters in the primary, whatever their political leanings, would advance to the general election.

This is what’s known as a “jungle primary,” which doesn’t have to be nonpartisan. (California recently instituted them, which led to a high-profile race last year of two veteran Democratic congressman facing off against each other in the general election.) Under Adelstein’s system, the nominees for secretary of state could end up being a Democrat and a Republican, like normally happens. Or they could be a conservative Republican and a moderate Republican. Or two moderate Republicans. Or two moderate Democrats. (When you get a lot of candidates running, splintering the ballot, all sorts of crazy things can happen.)

I am generally a fan of jungle primaries, because they’re fun and interesting. Is that the best solution for South Dakota’s secretary of state position? Hard to say.

(Another component of Adelstein’s bill would be to make it illegal for political parties to endorse or nominate and candidate for the office, which is interesting given Chief Justice David Gilbertson’s proposal to eliminate a similar rule for judicial elections.)

One thing that does seem clear: if South Dakota were to adopt this, we’d be a trailblazer. The National Association of Secretaries of State referred me to their member roster, which contains exactly zero secretaries of state who aren’t either a Democrat or Republican. (There are two exceptions in U.S. territories. American Samoa has an independent secretary of state, though one who — like some states — fills that role by virtue of being the lieutenant governor. Puerto Rico’s secretary of state is a member of that island’s Popular Democratic Party.)

That applies for elected and appointed secretaries of state, for those who are chief elections officer and those who are not, and for those who are just their state’s multitasking lieutenant governors.

Is this a trail South Dakota should blaze?

One final nitpick: Adelstein’s bill title refers to “nonpolitical elections” of secretaries of state. That’s not accurate; there would still be politics involved in this election. They just wouldn’t be, at least overtly, PARTISAN politics. A more accurate title would refer to “nonpartisan elections.”

Here’s Adelstein’s draft bill:

An Act to provide for the nonpolitical election of the secretary of state

Ban political activity in the secretary of state’s office?

Instead of pursuing impeachment against Secretary of State Jason Gant, Gant’s nemesis Sen. Stan Adelstein is bringing several bills aimed at reforming the secretary of state’s office. 

I’ll give each one a separate post.

First, Adelstein has a bill preventing the secretary of state, or any employees working with elections, from endorsing, assisting or advising any “candidate for election to congressional, state or legislative office.”

That’s a response to two things in the past year:

• Gant’s endorsement of Rep. Val Rausch in his Senate primary
• Gant’s director of operations Pat Powers maintaining a side business selling campaign merchandise to candidates

Depending on how one classified Powers’ involvement in elections at the time, this could make both activities illegal going forward if it passes. (It may not — Sen. Russell Olson, at least, was skeptical of Adelstein’s bill.)

Here’s the text of the bill draft:

An act to prohibit certain political activity within the Office of the Secretary of State

Adelstein abandons plans to impeach Gant

Repeatedly over 2012, state Sen. Stan Adelstein talked loudly about impeaching his newfound nemesis, Secretary of State Jason Gant.

Now Adelstein says he’s decided not to pursue that course of action.

“I’m not going to fool with it any more,” Adelstein said. “If no one else cares, then why should I?”

Legislative leaders in both parties said they’re glad. An impeachment proceeding would have been high-profile and divisive, and not what they want to spend the Legislature’s 38 days on.

“I’m glad we don’t have to face that,” said Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, the Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives. “We have a good, positive legislative session going on here.”

Sen. Russ Olson, the Senate Republican leader, said he was “happy to hear” about the abandoned attempt, which he said would have been “a distraction from the legislative process.”

But Adelstein’s still upset with Gant, even without pursuing impeachment, and plans on bringing several bills to reform the office.

Read the full story here.

Gant: concealed handgun permits on the rise

South Dakota has seen “a significant increase” in the number of concealed handgun permits issued in recent months, Secretary of State Jason Gant said.

Last year Gant, who is responsible for issuing concealed handgun permits in South Dakota, issued just over 18,000 permits.

In the first 11 days of 2013 alone, he’s issued 3,029.

He issued 15,794 in 2011.

And as the question of gun control heats up nationwide, a news release from Gant’s office said it is anticipating a further rise in permit applications.

In order to carry a concealed handgun, South Dakotans have to have a permit issued by the state, which is given after a background check and a $10 fee.

The issue has been controversial in South Dakota the past several years. In 2012, the Legislature passed a bill allowing anyone with a valid South Dakota driver’s license to carry a concealed weapons, but Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed the measure after law enforcement expressed concerns. Another measure, abolishing the requirement for a permit altogether, has already been introduced for the 2013 legislative session.

After the jump, information from Gant on obtaining a concealed handgun permit:

Read More

Strong faces fee request, doubles down on recording

By representing herself in her lawsuit trying to kick Rep. Brian Gosch off the ballot, Rapid City activist Stephanie Strong avoided having to pay the expensive cost of an lawyer.

Unless Judge Kathleen Trandahl says otherwise.

That’s because Gosch and the Pennington County Republican Party have filed a motion asking Trandahl to force Strong to pay their attorney fees.

SDCL 15-17-51 provides for just that in cases that are “frivolous or malicious”; Gosch and the Pennington County Republican Party argue Strong’s lawsuit was just that.

You can read their arguments why in the court documents embedded below.

Their attorney, Sara Frankenstein, also brings up the fact that Strong recorded the hearing and emailed it to the Argus Leader (as well as, apparently, blogger Cory Heidelberger), casually mentioning that “the Court may sanction Strong under this authority as well.”

Strong, for her part, doesn’t like the standing order forbidding people from recording court hearings. She’s contacted an advocacy group called “Lawless America,” which supports changes including public recordings of all court hearings (as well as ending requirements of legal degrees and legal experience for judges; the group says “lawyers are a big part of the problem with the legal system” and that “if the participants in a case go by the rules and the law, any intelligent person can serve as a judge”). Read their manifesto here.

Lawless America is focused on changing state laws, but Strong said in an email that she is working with the group to present their report at her next hearing.

That hearing will be on Jan. 25 at 9 a.m. in the Hughes County Courthouse.

“The judge has indicated that the parties will not be allowed to participate telephonically,” Frankenstein writes.

Here’s Frankenstein’s filing:

Strong v. Gant motion for attorney fees

Judge rules for Gant, Gosch in ballot lawsuit

South Dakota judge Kathleen Trandahl has apparently ruled for South Dakota Secretary of State Jason Gant and state Rep. Brian Gosch in a lawsuit over Gosch’s spot on the ballot.

Gosch, the presumptive next Speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, won a Republican primary and the November general election from District 32, in Rapid City.

But Stephanie Strong, a Rapid City businesswoman and activist, sued to try to force Gant to remove Gosch from the ballot.

There’s been no official release from the court, but Gosch’s attorney Sara Frankenstein said today that Trandahl ruled today in favor of Gosch and Gant in all counts.

Similarly, Strong released a statement after the apparent ruling criticizing Trandahl for letting Gant “off the hook” and giving “Gosch a pass.”

If true, the ruling would mean Gosch can take his seat in the Legislature as planned in January. Strong wanted Gosch disqualified as a candidate.

According to Frankenstein, Trandahl ruled that Strong missed the deadline to challenge Gosch’s nominating petitions, which Strong argued were invalid. Such a lawsuit should have been filed before South Dakota’s June primary, or at least before a mid-August deadline for candidate to be replaced on the ballot, Frankenstein said.

Strong filed her lawsuit in late August.

Gosch’s alleged violation, notarizing some of his own nominating petitions, isn’t necessarily disqualifying, Frankenstein said Trandahl ruled.

She said the judge clarified that Gosch had notarized the petition circulator’s signature, not his own signature, and ruled that the law didn’t say whether that was or was not legal.

Given that, the burden was apparently on Strong to prove that Gosch should be removed from the ballot, which she did not do, according to Frankenstein.

Before ruling on these points, Trandahl ruled that Gosch and the Pennington County Republican Party could intervene in the case, which was originally filed as Strong v. Gant.

Stay with Argus Leader Media for more updates on this case.

Dem group sends voters to wrong polling place (updated)

Secretary of State Jason Gant just released a statement warning voters about mailings from a third-party group with wrong information about where to vote.

Correct information about your polling place is available at sdsos.gov. You can also vote absentee at your county auditor’s office until 3 p.m. on Election Day.

The mailers have been confirmed from a group called Every Vote Counts. According to campaign finance reports, that group’s chairman is South Dakota Democratic Party chair Ben Nesselhuf.

Gant says Nesselhuf admitted sending the wrong information and is “attempting to contact those voters with the correct information.”

The mailings were confirmed as sent to voters in Stanley and Pennington counties.

It’s unknown whether those incorrect mailings were sent to Democratic leaners (in which case probably an embarrassing mistake) or Republican leaners (in which case it sure looks like electoral chicanery).

UPDATE: Reached by phone, Nesselhuf said the mailings went out to Democrats.

“It’s our people,” Nesselhuf said. “It’s all Democrats and Democratic leaners.”

Nesselhuf said the group sent out “several thousand” mailings and that around 5 percent of them had incorrect information. He blamed a computer program error for the problem.

“We are bombarding those poor people with phone calls now trying to correct it,” he said.

The recipients of the mailing campaign were about 80 percent Democrats, 19 percent independents and a “smattering of Republicans,” Nesselhuf said.

Nesselhuf said Democrats first discovered the problem Saturday morning when a recipient emailed them.

“Considering it’s Democrats (receiving the mailers), most of the folks emailing us thought it was Republicans up to something,” he said.

Did you get one of these mailings? Send me a scan! Or at least let me know the circumstances in which you got it.