Home > 2015 SD Legislative Session > SD 2015 Legislature: Senate Local Government committee bills on Jan 21

SD 2015 Legislature: Senate Local Government committee bills on Jan 21

January 19, 2015
5% Chance

5% Chance

On Wednesday, January 21st, at 7:45 AM the Senate Local Government committee will hear public input on four bills. The Senate Local Government committee met on Jan 16, but had no bills to hear at that time.

Here are the four bills going before the Senate Local Government committee on January 21. I’ve included my initial thoughts on each bill. After hearing testimony or further studying a bill I may (and often do) change my thoughts about the merit of any particular bill.

SB 64 – Revise certain provisions regarding the registration of business names.

The SD Secretary of State (SOS) asked for this bill. This bill requires non-profit companies to file a fictitious name statement with the state just like for-profit companies have to. Actually this change makes sense. I can’t think of why non-profits would have been treated different in this case.

SB 65 – Revise certain procedures regarding campaign finance disclosure statements.

This bill comes as a request of the SD State Board of Elections. Most of it seems to be changing the word “filed” to “submitted”. Personally I think both mean the same thing in this instance, but perhaps there has been some ambiguity.

SB 66 – Revise certain provisions regarding the county renaming process.

Another bill from the SOS office.  Since the voters successfully chose to rename Shannon County to Oglala Lakota County there have apparently been some questions about what the legislators are actually supposed to do. To clear this up the bill removes the legislators out of the equation completely and has the governor proclaim the new county name the July after the election to change the name. I personally don’t see a problem with this bill.

SB 68 – provide for a random sampling of nominating petition signatures for statewide offices.

This one comes from the SD State Board of Elections. It is one of Secretary Krebs attempts to reform election a law in SD. This bill would require the SOS office to randomly sample 5% of each nominating petition for validity. If the random sample proves a sufficient number of qualified voters have signed the petition, then the SOS must certify the petition and place the candidate on the ballot. If the random sample does not get enough signature to show sufficient numbers, then the SOS office will certify that the candidate will not be placed on the ballot.

I fully agree with the five percent random sampling being done. I also agree with the SOS certifying a petition once the random sample shows enough signatures.

But, I do see potential problems with not allowing a petition based upon a random sampling. I think some mechanism must exist for the person submitting the petition to prove there actually are enough valid signatures. Unless that is going to be done with SB 67 (my post about it here). Theoretically the expedited court process from SB 67 would be the time to prove a nominating petition does have the correct number of signatures, despite what the random sample says.

Overall I think this is a great move; and a law that would likely have invalided some of the petitions that were problems during the 2014 elections.

%d bloggers like this: