In a significant legal victory Tuesday, a federal appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s decision that South Dakota lawmakers contravened the First Amendment by advancing the petition submission deadline by three months. The ruling marks an ongoing triumph for Dakotans for Health, a dedicated South Dakota group striving to safeguard timely access for petitioning questions onto statewide ballots.
Rick Weiland
Following the 2022 legislative session, state lawmakers approved a measure shifting the filing deadline for signed petitions from the first Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in February. This legislation drew immediate opposition, catapulting the matter into the federal court system. Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health led the charge against the law, highlighting its “chilling effect” on grassroots efforts critical to South Dakota’s democratic fabric.
The plaintiffs’ victory in the three-judge panel’s decision underscores the importance of smoothing the ballot question journey for many state residents. Following the critical opinion authored by Judge Raymond Gruender, he stated that “there was insufficient support for the argument that the new deadline would bolster voters’ confidence.” His remarks were echoed by fellow Judge Jane Kelly, who found the inconvenience imposed by the legislation needlessly severe.
In contrast, Judge James Loken dissented, asserting the case ventured into “federal court micromanagement of state elections,” a position emphasized by South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley. Jackley maintains the legislation was designed to both respect constitutional rights and extend the state’s interest in election integrity.
Raymond Gruender
This legal saga bears crucial implications for South Dakota’s electoral processes and citizen-led initiatives. Central to this dispute is whether the new timeframe for gathering 17,508 signatures for a proposed law or 35,017 signatures for state constitutional amendments genuinely benefits state elections or unduly burdens the electorate. The state insists that a longer period post-submission allows for comprehensive litigation and resolution of potential ballot disputes.
Weiland remains steadfast in his group’s efforts despite the legal entanglements. Dakotans for Health are currently amassing support for two vital constitutional amendments. One proposed amendment seeks to preserve voter-approved measures from legislative interference for seven years, requiring a supermajority legislative vote to enact changes afterward. The second amendment advocates for mandatory voter approval of any legislative alterations to the initiated ballot measure process.
These amendments represent a profound check on legislative power while reaffirming voter agency—a sentiment echoing through the halls of South Dakota’s political landscape.
Attorney General Marty Jackley’s plans to appeal the panel’s ruling, requesting an en banc review by the entire 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, underscores a protracted legal battle that continues to shape the petitioning climate in South Dakota.
For local communities reliant on grassroots campaigns to bring issues to a vote, the adversarial legal landscape has tangible effects, including fundraising challenges and volunteer mobilization setbacks. As Rick Weiland pointed out, “It takes a well-coordinated, well-funded effort to succeed, and with that bill hanging over our heads and tied up in the courts, it’s very difficult to gather the necessary support.”
In the heart of the Midwest, South Dakota stands as a beacon of direct democracy, reflective of its people’s independent spirit and commitment to ensuring every vote and voice matters. The continuing saga in South Dakota’s courts serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between legislative intent and constitutional liberties—a narrative that resonates far beyond the borders of this peninsular-shaped state.
South Dakotans, known for their resilience and commitment to local governance, continue to rally around these pivotal issues, seeking resolution that honors both procedural integrity and citizen empowerment. As the discourse unfolds, it effectively highlights the paramount importance of grassroots advocacy and legal scrutiny in preserving a truly representative democracy.