According to my sources, City Clerk Lorie Hogstad has verified that SON has around 5,600 valid signatures. Keep in mind though, this was HER review of the signatures. She must still look at the WM challenges, which may be complicated because SOS Gant in all of his wisdom has purged voter rolls recently of voters who haven’t voted in the last two years  haven’t voted in the last two general election cycles. (new state law). So many of people who signed the petition were registered to vote when signing, and now they may not be.
Click on links below to read supporting DOCS:
Even I can’t blame Mr. Gant on that one if it’s a new state law. I blame the legislatures.
Grudz, he was in the legislature when it was passed.
Congratulations SON!
A new law has been passed that allows voters to be purged if they haven’t voted in 2 years???!!! That has the odor of ALEC and the Koch brothers and it really stinks.
Jesus told the legislature to pass the law Helga.
If you can prove you are a qualified voter, but unregister, you can still vote. I would assume the same is true with petitions. SDCL does not state you need to be a registered voter to sign a petition, only a qualified voter.
Why is it sinister to keep your voting records accurate and up to date? By state law, the jury pool list and the voter list much be matched up every year.
The law has been in place since 2002. If a voter doesn’t vote at least once or update their registration in 4 years, AND doesn’t respond to a postage-paid mailer, they become inactive. They can still vote and sign petitions if they’re inactive. Once they’re inactive, if they don’t vote even once or update their reg. in 4 MORE years (2 general election cycles), their registration is cancelled.
The rewritten Koch funded, ALEC modeled voter ID law change allows for the SOS and local county auditor, to make any registration not used for voting during the latest two election cycles ‘inactive’. If the registration was not used for voting in 2010 and 2012 general election period, the potential voter is made officially ‘inactive’.
Once a voter is made ‘inactive’ and shows up to vote, they must re-register to vote.
If the registration is ‘inactive’ for 8 years or four general election cycles they are purged from the voter rolls. The data is kept on them (because the state still wants to keep track of everything and everyone forever). So the soon to be purged voter is sent a series of official looking cards and letters from the local county auditor’s office to verify their ID and address. If the letter is not returned, the registration is purged from system.
This has nothing to do with keeping voting records accurate. This is a way to control who can vote. This system is so wrong on so many levels.
South Dakota is purging 60,000+ names from the voter rolls, just because the potential voter did not ‘participate’ in the system the way the Koch brothers want. We know we have a problem with people only voting when they want. We cannot force people to vote but by the same token, we as a society should not put more roadblocks up to keep people from voting.
The law change sue mentions was made to eliminate the ‘undeserving’ and ‘undesirables’. It was pushed by the Bush / Rove / Rove administration to have the permanent Republican majority.
How’s this working out for you?
testor – those cards and letters would not be official “looking” – they would actually BE official.
Do not misconstrue this as my approving in any way of the process.
Do construe this as my pointing out your inherent knee-jerk disdain for ANYTHING official.
ruf, get a grip on reality.
Many people have a fear of ‘Official’ looking papers they receive. What do these people do with them? Put them away until they are required by events to do something about them.
You and many of us will deal with these pieces of paper, but a large percentage will set them aside, instead of understanding why they received them.
These are ‘official’ looking and not ‘friendly’ looking letters. To many these are scary pieces of paper with words they will not understand. You can make jokes about low information or poorly educated people and their right to vote. Our system is for everyone to participate, no matter what their education or economic situation.
We are talking about people of many economic and education levels. Many are afraid they will look foolish if they ask a question about the paperwork, better to ignore it.
This model legislation was designed to strip away the low information voter first, then the least likely to vote every time, then the people with ‘issues’ and anyone not fitting into their ideal of the correct Koch model voter.
Wake up sheeple and get a grip on this mess.
When you are registered to vote and you choose to not vote in a or multiple elections should that not be your prerogative, is that not a vote of absentia or one of disgust, which is your right? Why should voters have to show-up at the polls only to not complete a given ballot to express their protest?
Many European democracies produce an election list. This list has the names of all of the eligible voters on it in a given voting district based on age and address information available from the most current government records. The burden is upon the State to register voters and not the voter. The European approach has a presumptive attitude about having potential voters registered, whereas the American approach creates an unnecessary regulatory burden that discourages voting.
The European approach does have its challenges like what if the government thought you were living in South Dakota, but actually you are living in Minnesota? Such snafus should be left to the voter to prevent or to check-out ahead of time, but the fact that you are a legal and eligible voter should never be questioned nor discouraged. A course, the fact that we have a republic with fifty states and fifty states with election laws, not all the same, makes the European approach challenging, but this could be remedied with Federal legislation concerning Federal elections, which out of practicality would lead the States to use the same registration system for state and local elections as well.
Our Federal system, our Republic, consists of many political institutions which not only reflect an indirect democracy, but perpetuate it as well even when it is not necessary or encouraging to the long term maintenance and promotion of the alleged democratic principles found within our national government. And I am afraid, the way we handle voter registration as a nation is demonstrative of this fact.
One should be able to go to the polls to vote with the same presumption that one has when you to go to the Post Office to mail a letter or when you appear at a local public school to present your child for kindergarten. A free people should own their country and not have to apply for participation. Upon birth we cannot reject the birth certificate creation, which some day empowers our government to potentially draft our sons, so why should we have to make an asserted effort through registration to prevent the need for the draft in the future or a future potential war? Our government’s legitimacy comes from having a purpose, like creating a voters list, and serving the people’s needs, and not from having the people serve the interests merely of the government.
Winston, that is great. Where did you copy that from 🙂
Sue, I think the bigger question is, why don’t you run on the Democratic ticket for SOS? I think the office needs someone like you, intelligent, well informed and balanced. I still get a little belly laugh that Gant had to hire a temp Dem to bail his ass out in the last election. This tells us everything we need to know about how the Repubs been running the office. What would it take to get 8 years out of you Sue? Move the office to SF? Or better yet Hawaii?
Hmm, Hawaii — now THAT’S an idea! 😉
No copy, just my own thoughts…..
nicely said Winston
Sue – If a registration is canceled can one still go to your correct precinct on election day and get an emergency voting card and vote?
If the registration is inactive, the voter can vote at their old precinct. They will have to fill out a new registration form at that time, which will return them to active status, but then they can vote.
Once the registration is canceled, though (after 4 years as inactive), they won’t be able to vote unless they’ve filled out a new registration at least 15 days before the election.
Important note — a voter never becomes inactive just because they haven’t voted. It happens when (1) they haven’t voted in 4 years, (2) an address verification postcard mailed to the mailing address on their voter registration is returned as undeliverable, and then (3) they don’t return the postage-paid postcard that is mailed to them with forwarding service requested.
Sorry, that last comment was mine. I forgot to type in my name.
Sue…first off, thank you for your service. You tried to make the public aware of the large contingent of voters we have in SF who do not live here, but only have PO boxes and a mobile home parked permanently in Arizona. Too bad it fell on deaf ears thanks in large part to our asleep at the wheel local media. Thanks in large part to a do nothing congress I figured what the hell in the last general election and did not vote. Does that decision impact me as a voter in local issues?
If you vote once in 4 years (in any election, not just the general), you stay active for all elections. If you don’t vote in 4 years but haven’t changed addresses, you should still be active.
If a person hasn’t voted in a long time and wants to make sure they’re registered, they can check it on the SOS website. That works pretty well, unless your registration is so old it doesn’t have your birthdate on it. Then the system won’t find a match. That doesn’t mean you’re not registered, but you should call the county auditor to check it out.
Sue, if you are not going to run (even if we supply you a Hawaii office) Will you at least be active in recruiting a good Dem candidate?
sue r, apparently the rules have changed or are being applied differently now with the e-book system. If you have not voted in the last two general election cycles, 2010 or 2012 you are moved to ‘Inactive’ status.
If you go to vote and you are in ‘inactive’ status, you fill out a new voter registration and you are allowed to vote.
If you have not voted in 4 cycles (or eight years), lets say 2012, 2010, 2008 or 2006 your registration is purged from the system and you must fully re-register.
It is now a system designed to prevent people from voting. We do not live in a society where people are required to vote. As Winston said so well, by our NOT voting, people vote. Dissatisfaction with the system is a strong voting voice. I do not agree with sitting out the process but there sometimes is a temptation.
” If you have not voted in the last two general election cycles, 2010 or 2012 you are moved to ‘Inactive’ status.”
Before this happens, a Voter Address Verification card is mailed to the voter’s mailing address. If that comes back to the election office undeliverable, a prepaid, forwarding service requested postcard is mailed to the voter. Only if that card is not returned within 30 days is the voter moved to ‘Inactive’.
A voter can’t be moved to Inactive simply for not voting.
The understanding we are getting now is the post card is used to prevent the purge. I think there is confusion or possible intention.
As stated before: “Many people have a fear of ‘Official’ looking papers they receive. What do these people do with them? Put them away until they are required by events to do something about them. ” By then they are listed ‘inactive’ or ‘purged’.
“Many people have a fear of ‘Official’ looking papers they receive.”
Maybe we are better off if these kinds of people weren’t voting in the first place. If someone isn’t smart enough to read a post card or understand the implications of NOT reading their mail, then they likely are so uninformed of the world around them we would be better off if they stayed home and didn’t bother to register their vote, because there is no hope they would ever understand a referendum or ballot issue.
Craig, you and many have your expressed feeling “Maybe we are better off “. I do not think so.
All Americans have been given the right to vote and just because the politicos find it inconvenient to properly educate the populace to their cause they shouldn’t be included any longer?
We are a society. We should foster inclusion. Why should your point of view or Bud’s point of view or Jan’s point of view be more important than the least amongst us?
People vote and don’t vote for a variety of reasons. Once someone starts voting, their name on a list should never be an issue. Once a person reaches the magic age of 18 and they want to vote, they should be permitted.
I have helped many people through the years get to the polls even knowing they are voting against the very thing I want to succeed. It hurts on one level but it also feels good to assist these very people be part of the system. I have seen the immense joy they have experienced because someone could help them be a citizen.
Anyone who wishes to restrict someone from voting, needs to have their right to vote removed until they understand what citizenship really means.
Think of our voting as if we are actually stockholders (owners of stock) in the giant cooperative called the USA. We the citizen owners of the stock are ASKED to show up every so often to select the directors and set the future agendas for there areas of responsibility.
We are citizen owners of all the governments of the USA voting in a proxy battles. As in all proxy voting, to the disappointment of those of us who have tried to convince, not everyone participates. By their not participating every time should not have their names removed just to make lists look streamlined.
Anyone who wishes to restrict someone from voting, needs to have their right to vote removed until they understand what citizenship really means.
Well said. I would add there many shysters out there who can make junk mail appear to be official. Marketing directors are good at this scam. Think first premier. So when senior citizens ate sent official mailings they rightfully so, still suspicious.
I mentioned earlier that I did not vote in the last general. I was telling my spouse about what we had learned from sue r yesterday, and in the course of the conversation I was reminded I did at the last minute go with her to vote. Easy to become disenfranchised though after educating yourself about the electoral college and gerrymandering. One man, one vote. Yeah right, at least in generals.
Testor: “We are a society. We should foster inclusion. Why should your point of view or Bud’s point of view or Jan’s point of view be more important than the least amongst us?”
and approximately 3 paragraphs later…
Testor: “Anyone who wishes to restrict someone from voting, needs to have their right to vote removed until they understand what citizenship really means.”
So basically, you’re all for ‘fostering inclusion’ provided the person agrees with your view on what it means to be a citizen.
Isn’t it ironic.
Craig, the later paragraph proves the point I was making. You and many more don’t fully appreciate our system when statements are made about who should be excluded. I am saying no one should be excluded. if we start excluding than maybe we should start with overly bright people so the leaders amongst us have a Chance.
So if someone wants to vote everyone or not, why should we care?
Voter exclusion is the rule of the day anymore. Take Florida. If you’re white and in a affluent neighborhood, ten minute waits to vote….tops. If you’re black,and likely to vote dem, hours and hours of waiting in line. The game is rigged, yet the gamers still can’t get what they want. Imagine a level playing field.
I do not believe one bit of that last comment!
The long lines referred to do happen. Mainly during early voting weekends when churches and other organizations bus voters to the early voting polls, of which there are much fewer than the number on election day. Hence long lines. But if you look at photos in the news stories, in is not a racial issues. Lots of people besides blacks in those lines.
I thought it was illegal to gather, feed and bus people to vote, but it seems to happen all the time in the early voting states.