South Dakota Initiated Measure 23, Right for Unions and Organizations to Charge Fees for Services Measure (2016)
| South Dakota Measure 23 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Business regulation | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
The South Dakota Right for Organizations to Charge Fees for Services Measure, also known as Initiated Measure 23, was an initiated state statute on the South Dakota ballot on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.[1]
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of giving corporate organizations and nonprofit organizations the right to charge a fee for any service provided. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against giving corporate organizations and nonprofit organizations the right to charge a fee for any service provided. |
Since 1947, South Dakota has been a right-to-work state, which means employees can choose whether or not they want to join a union. If Measure 23 had passed, workers would have still been allowed to opt out of joining unions, but non-union employees could have been subject to fees for representation. According to Dana Ferguson, a writer for Argus Leader, this measure could have restarted the debate over the state's right-to-work law.[2]
Election results
| Measure 23 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 279,482 | 79.69% | ||
| Yes | 71,250 | 20.31% | ||
- Election results from South Dakota Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot question
The question that appeared on the ballot was as follows:[3]
| “ |
A vote "Yes" is for allowing certain organizations the right to charge fees. A vote "No" is against the measure. [4] |
” |
Ballot summary
The summary title was:[1]
| “ | Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an organization, corporate or nonprofit, has the right to charge a fee for any service provided by the organization. Section 2. The effective date of this Act is July 1, 2017[4] |
” |
Attorney general's explanation
The following was the attorney general's ballot explanation:[5]
| “ | The measure gives corporate organizations and non-profit organizations the right to charge a fee for any service provided. This measure takes effect on July 1, 2017.
A vote “Yes” is for allowing certain organizations the right to charge fees. A vote “No” is against the measure. [4] |
” |
Support
Vote Yes 23 led the support campaign for Measure 23. South Dakotans for Fairness registered to support this measure.[6]
Supporters
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49[2]
Arguments in favor
Jason George, director of special projects for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local Chapter 49, said,[2]
| “ | Unions are the only organizations in the country that are required to provide a service, but can’t charge a fee. We don’t think that’s fair.[4] | ” |
Official argument in favor
The official argument in favor of this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:[7]
| “ |
Vote “Yes” on IM23 and Close the Free-rider Loophole! Is it right for government to force anyone—including unions—to provide services for free? IM23 reaffirms the right of any business or not-for-profit organization to collect fees for services they provide. Under current law, targeted non-profit membership organizations in South Dakota are required to provide services to nonmembers, but aren’t allowed to charge for those services. Can you think of any other situation where government forces people to do anything free? A similar “free-rider” law, comparable to what we have in South Dakota, has recently been ruled unconstitutional in Wisconsin. This law does not inhibit or change in any way a South Dakotan's right to employment or require membership in any organization in order to hold a job. It merely closes the freerider loophole, now hurting many employee-sponsored organizations. IM23 will stop government interference into relationships between employers and workers to prevent “free-riders” from getting benefits other individuals are paying for without contributing their fair share. These benefits include pension plans, lifetime medical insurance, training and educational programs, and legal assistance. Imagine: you and co-workers pool your money to hire a specialist to negotiate a better contract. Several other workers refuse to help pay for maintaining the contract. They get the same raises you paid to negotiate. The same pension and health care benefits. The same legal protection. Without your investments, there wouldn't be raises, a pension and health benefits. How would you feel? Would you be comfortable if you were not helping? Companies and employees should work together to create good jobs and improve South Dakota's economy without government interference. State government should not be allowed to stop businesses and non-profit organizations from collecting fees for services that they provide. Vote Yes on IM23 and close the Free-rider Loophole! Submitted on behalf of South Dakotans for Fairness Ballot Committee, Scott Niles, Newell, SD, Chairman [4] |
” |
Opposition
No on IM 23 led the opposition campaign for Measure 23.[8] Defending Workers Rights South Dakota, South Dakotans for Freedom and Jobs, and No On 23 registered to oppose the measure.[6]
Opponents
- South Dakota Chamber of Commerce[9]
Arguments against
Greg Mourad, vice president for legislation at the National Right to Work Committee, argued:[2]
| “ | If union bosses in South Dakota cannot convince rank-and-file workers to support them voluntarily then they should reevaluate the representation they are providing instead of seeking to change the law so they can extort fees from workers against their will.[4] | ” |
David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, said,[9]
| “ | IM 23 is going to put fees in place so hard working teachers, firefighters, city workers, state workers can be assessed a fee by the unions and unions they have chosen not to belong to, and we’re opposed to these kinds of fees.[4] | ” |
Vincent Vernuccio and Jeremy Lott of the Mackinac Center wrote:[10]
| “ | It's all part of a broad attempt by organized labor this year to overturn right-to-work laws. They've filed suit in several states and now worked to put this vague initiative on the ballot — so vague in fact that, experts caution, it could lead to years of litigation. In right-to-work states such as South Dakota, unions representing a shop cannot force workers to pay them as a condition of employment. Most workers voluntarily pay the unions anyway, but some don't. The unions want to force workers to cough up the money, whether or not workers want unions representing them or are happy with how they're being represented.[4] | ” |
Official argument against
The official argument against this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:[7]
| “ |
First, read the language of IM-23:
Don’t understand it? It’s no wonder. Neither does anyone else. Does it really empower any organization to charge a fee for any service? What organizations or service does that include? And what impact will “notwithstanding any other provision of law” have on our existing laws that regulate fees or protect workers from being forced to pay fees to unions? IM-23 was brought by unions in Minnesota and Illinois to force hard-working South Dakota teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, linemen, city, and state workers to pay fees to labor unions even if those workers choose not to be union members. Having a job in South Dakota is not dependent on belonging to a labor organization or having to pay money to a union. That freedom is known as your “right to work”. South Dakota’s Right to Work law is in the Bill of Rights of the State Constitution. IM 23 would essentially end that right because it would exist “notwithstanding” any other law, even laws that prohibit forced payments to unions. Your right to work does not, and should not, include being forced to pay fees. Organized labor claims they provide services including having to represent non-members in grievances at work. There is nothing that keeps unions from negotiating contracts that apply only to union members, leaving other workers to negotiate their own pay and deal with their own grievances. Historically Unions have had value, but workers should not be forced to pay membership fees if they don’t want to. Workers should decide on union membership. Don’t let your right to work become pay to work. VOTE NO on IM-23. David Owen, Chairman of NO on 23 committee [4] |
” |
Campaign finance
As of February 8, 2017, the campaign in support of Measure 23 featured one ballot question committee, South Dakotans for Fairness, that received a total of $990,642.07 in contributions. The campaign spent $990,542.07.[6][11]
As of February 8, 2017, the campaign in opposition to Measure 23 featured three ballot question committees that raised a total of $334,301.63.[6]
The top donor in support of Measure 23, Americans for Fairness, provided 84 percent of the campaign's total funds, contributing $832,142.07. The top donor in opposition, the National Right to Work Committee, provided 43 percent of the campaign's total funds, contributing $145,000.00.[6]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $990,642.07 | $0.00 | $990,642.07 | $990,542.07 | $990,542.07 |
| Oppose | $334,301.63 | $0.00 | $334,301.63 | $321,535.47 | $321,535.47 |
| Total | $1,324,943.70 | $0.00 | $1,324,943.70 | $1,312,077.54 | $1,312,077.54 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[6]
| Committees in support of Initiated Measure 23 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| South Dakotans for Fairness | $990,642.07 | $0.00 | $990,642.07 | $990,542.07 | $990,542.07 |
| Total | $990,642.07 | $0.00 | $990,642.07 | $990,542.07 | $990,542.07 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[6]
| Committees in opposition to Initiated Measure 23 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| No On 23 | $188,120.63 | $0.00 | $188,120.63 | $175,354.47 | $175,354.47 |
| South Dakotans for Freedom and Jobs | $146,181.00 | $0.00 | $146,181.00 | $146,181.00 | $146,181.00 |
| Defending Workers Rights South Dakota | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $334,301.63 | $0.00 | $334,301.63 | $321,535.47 | $321,535.47 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the committee.[6]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Right to Work Committee | $145,000.00 | $0.00 | $145,000.00 |
| Associated General Contractors of SD Inc | $60,000.00 | $0.00 | $60,000.00 |
| South Dakota Chamber Ballot Action Committee | $28,002.15 | $0.00 | $28,002.15 |
| SD Retailers Assoc PAC | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
| Contractors PAC of SD | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Path to the ballot
The required number of valid signatures is tied to the number of votes cast for the office of the Governor of South Dakota in the most recent gubernatorial election. Since the initiative is proposed for 2016, the number of required signatures reflected the votes cast in the 2014 gubernatorial election.
Supporters needed to collect 13,870 signatures by the November 9, 2015, deadline. The sponsor of the petition confirmed that 20,000 signatures were submitted and the secretary of state's office certified the measure on January 19, 2016.[12]
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.[13]
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
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.[14]
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
External links
Support
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Initiative petition," accessed December 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 The Argus Leader, "Ballot measure could rekindle right-to-work debate," September 8, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "Yes/No Recitations," accessed August 5, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "Attorney General's Explanation for IM 23," June 8, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Campaign finance reporting system," accessed November 3, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 South Dakota Secretary of State, "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ No on IM 23, "Home," accessed November 8, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 SDPB, "Unions Say IM23 Is About Fairness, Opponents Say It’s Forced Collection," August 3, 2016
- ↑ Washington Examiner, "Beware the squeegee men, South Dakota", October 23, 2016
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "South Dakotans for Fairness Campaign Finance Disclosure Statement Pre-General," October 28, 2016
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "2016 Ballot Questions," accessed December 8, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State Campaign Finance Reporting System, "South Dakotans for Fairness," accessed September 22, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of South Dakota Pierre (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
