Senator Dan Lederman is floatingthe idea that South Dakota should pass a ban on paying people to
circulate petitions.
I do not agree with
Senator Lederman on banning the practice of paying circulators. I do agree the
petition process is being abused and is in need of some reform.
This election cycle we
have learned there needs to be a longer filing period. It can be stipulated
that petitions for both candidates, initiatives, and referendums should have
longer filing periods. And The Secretary of State should have longer to examine
the petitions for form and accuracy before certification. Both the date for
taking out the petition and filing deadline should be advanced so that
petitions have time to be properly certified and appropriately challenged (if necessary) in time
that election officials can print ballots for both absentee voters and for election
day.
Specifically to paid
circulators – Senator Lederman is correct, more candidates and interest groups
are using paid circulators. There is nothing wrong with that. It creates jobs.
I like it. The problem is it gives the impression that the candidacy or issue
is popularly supported. Historically because the circulators were volunteers,
citizens believed there was public support for the candidate or issue. With
paid circulators popular support is implied when it is actually hired.
A few current examples of
paid circulators are – The use by the S D Democrat Party and interest groups to
foster legislation they could not pass or get passed in the Legislature.
Examples are the minimum wage legislation and the you can choose your own
doctor without restrictions from your health plan initiatives that are on the
ballot this November.
It is my understanding
though I will stand corrected that among others Larry Pressler and Gordon Howie
employed circulators. Even this spring here in Sioux Falls, Mike Huether who
was running for re election as Mayor, when confronted about using paid
circulators, he told the press he was too busy with important work to be
troubled with petitions.
It is a short leap to ask
about campaigns and parties using paid staff to circulate petitions. Every
campaign in memory with paid staff uses them is some fashion to see petition
signatures are gathered and filed. Should this also be reported?
Take me away, I plead
guilty, while leading the Republican Party our organization used staff to help
candidates with their petitions.
To rectify this, I would
propose a couple of remedies. First anyone candidate or group would file with
the Secretary of State or local election official as appropriate a statement
declaring they are using paid circulators, the names of the circulators and or
the contractor as appropriate. I would require that the circulators get a sales
tax license and pay the general sales tax on all fees charged the beneficiary
of the petition. I would additionally require that all persons circulating
petitions be required to wear a badge or button that can be seen by the
potential signatory that identifies the circulator as being paid.
A personal suggestion is
circulators wear a minimum 4-inch in diameter pink button with black letters stating,
“I am being paid to ask for your signature.” Whatever the disclaimer, any law
could specify the language or delegate it to the Secretary of State or the S.D.
Board of Elections.
I have suggested before,
the number of signatures that are required for initiative and referendum
petitions should be seriously raised.
The current requirements
when enacted were daunting. Today much easier, in effect lowing the threshold
of public support. Today we don’t travel by horse and buggy, we have
telephones, fax machines (remember those?), the Internet, social media. Ease of
gathering petitions and disseminating information is much easier than when
initiative and referendum were enacted. Today using paid circulators (as
Senator Lederman suggests) if you have enough moolah you can get anything on
the ballot. Raising the requirement would create even more economic activity
and employment.
Finally we must restore
confidence that all players in elections play by the same set of rules. To maintain
public confidence in our election process there is no room for the mistakes
taking place with voters getting the wrong absentee ballots or election law
being administered one way for one candidate and another way for a different candidate.
People can and do make mistakes (myself included) but when mistakes are made
there is a loss of public trust.
