South Dakota Independent Candidates Election Law Referendum, Referred Law 19 (2016)

South Dakota Referred Law 19
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Elections and campaigns
Status d Defeated
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Constitutional Amendment R a
Constitutional Amendment S a
Constitutional Amendment T d
Constitutional Amendment U d
Constitutional Amendment V d
Referred Law 19 d
Referred Law 20 d
Initiated Measure 21 a
Initiated Measure 22 a
Initiated Measure 23 d
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The South Dakota Independent Candidates Election Law Referendum, also known as Referred Law 19, was on the November 8, 2016 ballot in South Dakota as a veto referendum. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported Senate Bill 69 (SB 69), a statute changing election laws regarding independent candidates, minor political parties, and signature collection numbers and due dates.

A "no" vote opposed SB 69.

Opponents of Senate Bill 69 collected signatures to put this measure before voters, giving them a chance to overturn the law. Thus, those responsible for putting this measure on the ballot advocated for a "no" vote on election day.

Election results

Referred Law 19
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		242,113	71.05%
Yes		98,657	28.95%

Election results from South Dakota Secretary of State

Text of Measure

Attorney General explanation

The Attorney General's ballot explanation was as follows:

“

Currently, primary election candidates for certain offices must circulate and submit nominating petitions between January 1 and the last Tuesday in March. Referred Law 19 changes that timeframe to between December 1 and the first Tuesday in March. The referred law also changes other election-related submission deadlines, adjusting them from the last Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March. Certain election-related documents, including nominating petitions, are currently considered timely submitted if sent by registered mail before the deadline. The referred law changes this to require that these documents be received by the submission deadline. It also changes the method for calculating the number of signatures required on nominating petitions for certain elective offices. The referred law prohibits a person registered with a recognized political party from signing an independent candidate's nominating petition. The current law does not contain that prohibition. Under the referred law, an independent governor candidate cannot appear on the ballot if the corresponding lieutenant governor candidate withdraws and a replacement is not certified by the second Tuesday in August. It also restricts the circumstances under which a political party may replace a candidate who has withdrawn from consideration after the primary election. A vote "Yes" is for revising State laws regarding elections and election petitions. A vote "No" is against the referred law.

”

Full text

Read the full text of Senate Bill 69 here.

Support for "yes" vote

Those who support/supported a "yes" vote on this measure and opposed the veto referendum petition effort targeting Senate Bill 69 are referred to as supporters in this article.

Official argument for "yes" vote

The official argument for a "yes" vote on this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:

“

Passage of Referred Law 19 will mean fair and honest elections, increased transparency, and will prevent abuses of the election process. Republicans drafted this bill, Republican Legislators passed it, and a Republican Governor signed it. Every voter, especially Republicans, should support Referred Law 19. House Majority Leader Rep. Brian Gosch

”

Opposition to "yes" vote

Those who oppose/opposed a "yes" vote on this measure and supported the veto referendum petition effort targeting Senate Bill 69 are referred to as opponents in this article.

South Dakotans for Fair Elections registered to support the "no" vote.

Official argument against "yes" vote

The official argument against a "yes" vote on this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:

“

Referred Law 19 is an attack on democracy. Incumbent legislators hijacked a petition reform law and turned it into this pile of new regulations to help themselves cling to power and discourage us citizens from participating in elections. Among its several sections, Referred Law 19 makes three harmful changes. RL 19 moves the deadline for candidate petitions from the end of March to the beginning of March. Candidates for Legislature would have to decide whether to run or not before the Legislative Session ends. Candidates would lose most of the longer, warmer days of March to circulate petitions. In exchange, RL 19 gives them December, whose short days, cold weather, and holiday busyness make it the worst month for petitioning. These conditions mean fewer candidates will run for office. RL 19 requires Republican and Democratic candidates to gather more signatures. It’s already hard to recruit neighbors to run for office; making candidates collect more signatures will keep even more candidates off the ballot. Worst of all, RL 19 takes away the right of Republicans and Democrats to sign petitions for Independent candidates. Right now, Independent candidates can take signatures from any registered voter. RL 19 says Independents could only take signatures from fellow Independents. Limiting Independent petitions to Independent signers drastically reduces the number of South Dakotans who can sign Independent petitions (from 81% of adults to 17%) and makes it practically impossible for Independents to get on the ballot. These changes add up to fewer people running for office, fewer choices on our ballots, and fewer incumbents held accountable by challengers. That’s bad for democracy. If we want to encourage citizens to participate in elections and make their voices heard, let’s vote NO on Referred Law 19 and seek other reforms to improve our petition and election laws. Cory Allen Heidelberger Independent journalist, Dakota Free Press Candidate, District 3 Senate Aberdeen, South Dakota

”

Campaign finance

As of February 8, 2017, the opposition campaign for this measure featured one ballot question committee, South Dakotans for Fair Elections, that received a total of $375.22 in contributions. The campaign spent $375.22.

No ballot question committees registered to support Referred Law 19.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$375.22	$0.00	$375.22	$375.22	$375.22
Total	$375.22	$0.00	$375.22	$375.22	$375.22

Oppose

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Referred Law 19
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
South Dakotans for Fair Elections	$375.22	$0.00	$375.22	$375.22	$375.22
Total	$375.22	$0.00	$375.22	$375.22	$375.22

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

Opponents of Senate Bill 69 were required to collect a minimum of 13,870 valid signatures by June 29, 2015, for the veto referendum to appear on the November 8, 2016, ballot.

On June 29, 2015, petitioners reported collecting thousands of signatures in excess of the 13,870 requirement. The measure was certified for the ballot on June 29, according to the Secretary of State website.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $0 was spent to collect the 13,870 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.

State profile

Demographic data for South Dakota
	South Dakota	U.S.
Total population:	857,919	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	75,811	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.6%	12.6%
Asian:	1.2%	5.1%
Native American:	8.6%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.6%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	3.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.9%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$50,957	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	15.3%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in South Dakota. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in South Dakota

South Dakota voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in South Dakota, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. South Dakota had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More South Dakota coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in South Dakota
• United States congressional delegations from South Dakota
• Public policy in South Dakota
• Endorsers in South Dakota
• South Dakota fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• South Dakota 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 69
• South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet

Sponsor contact information

• Cory Heidelberger - 912 N 1st St., Aberdeen, SD 57401

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox