Appeals court grants new hearing in lawsuit over petitioning time for South Dakota ballot questions

A South Dakota group suffered a setback Thursday in its effort to protect adequate time for petitioning questions onto statewide ballots, as a federal appeals court vacated an earlier ruling in the group’s favor and set a new hearing for next year.

In August, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state lawmakers violated the First Amendment last year when they moved up the deadline for submitting petition signatures by three months.

South Dakota’s Republican Attorney General Marty Jackley responded to that ruling by seeking a new hearing with all 11 members of the appeals court. The court granted that request Thursday and set a new hearing for January in St. Louis.

Federal appeals court protects longer petitioning time for South Dakota ballot questions

Petitioners need 17,508 signatures from registered voters to put a proposed law on the ballot in South Dakota, and 35,017 signatures for a proposed state constitutional amendment. South Dakota lawmakers approved legislation last year that moved the deadline for filing signed petitions in a general election year from the first Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in February.

A group that’s been involved in numerous ballot questions, Dakotans for Health, challenged the law in federal court. A district court judge ruled the law violates the First Amendment, writing that moving the deadline three months earlier “arguably goes beyond merely inconvenient and enters the realm of severe.” The state appealed that ruling.

During arguments heard by the three-judge appeals panel in June, the state argued a shorter deadline gives more time for potential litigation over ballot questions to play out.

Judge Raymond Gruender wrote in an August opinion that the state didn’t provide “sufficient factual or legal support” for its argument that pre-election litigation on petitions would bolster the confidence of voters in the initiative and referendum process. Judge Jane Kelly joined Gruender in the decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge James Loken wrote “the Constitution does not authorize this federal court micromanagement of state elections.” The state law furthers South Dakota’s “interest in election integrity by extending the time for pre-election petition litigation,” Loken added.

Courtesy of South Dakota Searchlight