On Friday when the School Board agenda is supposed to come out, it didn’t, missing at least the Friday night news cycle. So by state law the agenda must come out 24 hours in advance.
So I guess someone went down to the IPC Sunday morning and decided to put up the agenda. (notice it was posted today)
Besides the fact that they waited until the last possible minute, they put the bond election last on the agenda hoping no one would stick around.
They really don’t want anyone talking about this. They don’t even mention the true cost of the bonds which will hover at $300,000,000.00;
1. Declaration of Necessity. It is hereby found, determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient for this School District to borrow money by issuing its general obligation school bonds in an amount not exceeding $190,000,000 payable from 1 and not to exceed 30 years from date of issuance, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rate or rates as may be determined by the School Board, to fund a new high school, a new middle school, a new elementary school, additions and expansions to existing school facilities, land purchases, other school district improvements, furnishing and equipping same and financing costs of issuance, if so approved by the voters.
So I found this paragraph interesting when it comes to who will handle the election, how many precincts, etc.;
3. Polling places and Judges. Polling places and judges and clerks for said election shall be selected according to South Dakota Law.
Okay, so what does that mean?
I encourage anyone who stands for open and transparent government to go to the school board meeting Monday night at 5:30 PM at the IPC and sign up to speak about the clear lack of transparency on this issue. While I support new schools, I don’t support bullsh*tting the public about the true cost and how the election will be ran. Not only is it bad government it is a terrible civic lesson for our young minds.
The SF School District seems to be in a competition with the Harrisburg School District to see who can bleed the most out of their taxpayer base. This is a distinction Harrisburg and Lincoln County seem to enjoy with the highest tax burden in the state, but Minnehaha and SF can still pull this one out!
They are most likely using the following SD statute to legally justify “Super Precincts.”
http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=13-7-11
13-7-11. Voting precincts and polling places. The number and place of voting precincts shall be determined by the school board.
Source: SDC 1939, § 15.2513; SL 1955, ch 41, ch 9, § 15; SL 1957, ch 65; SDC Supp 1960, § 15.2315; SL 1975, ch 128, § 38.
However, this South Dakota statute calls for the polling places to be convenient for the voter.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-14-9
12-14-9. Location of polling places. Polling places shall be selected with reference to the convenience of the voters in the various election precincts, and should be as near the center of the election precincts as practicable but if in their judgment the convenience of the voters will be served thereby or if communication can be thereby made available, the polling place may be located outside the boundaries of the precinct.
Source: SL 1911, ch 146; SL 1913, ch 204, § 1; SL 1915, ch 184, § 1; SL 1918 (SS), ch 47; RC 1919, § 7231; SL 1919, ch 186, § 2; SL 1933, ch 103, § 2; SL 1935, ch 110, § 2; SDC 1939, § 16.0801 (6); SL 1959, ch 94; SL 1967, ch 73; SL 1968, ch 80; SL 1970, ch 89; SL 1974, ch 118, § 63.
While this South Dakota statute defines a given jurisdiction (School District) as potentially one big precinct.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-14-17
12-14-17. Vote centers. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any jurisdiction may conduct an election using vote centers pursuant to the provisions of this section. The election shall be conducted in conformance with all applicable election laws and rules with the following exceptions:
(1) The jurisdiction may use vote centers that allow the voters in the jurisdiction to vote at any one of the vote centers in lieu of establishing precincts and wards for the election;
(2) Any person who is registered to vote and living in the jurisdiction may be appointed as a polling place superintendent or deputy to any of the vote centers;
(3) Secure, encrypted electronic pollbooks shall be used in lieu of paper registration books; and
(4) The entire jurisdiction is designated as one voting precinct for this election.
Source: SL 2012, ch 84, § 1, eff. Feb. 23, 2012; SL 2016, ch 77, § 2.
So my question is, if a given jurisdiction (School District) is one big precinct, then is not that jurisdiction still required to maintain a convenience standard according to state law, which would mean that having most “Super Precincts” in the southern half of a jurisdiction (School District) would not maintain that standard because of the locations of most of the “Super Precincts?”
Also, is not the waiting time to vote a convenience issue as well, which would mean if there are grossly far fewer “Super Precincts” in the northern part of a School District, that such an arrangement of “Super Precincts” does not meet the standard of convenience too? Because the courts should rule to the favor of the voters with the understanding that in a democracy you could have a 100% voter participation in an election and that potential reality must be facilitated to the favor of the voters as an additional default standard, which means that “Super Precincts,” as historically set up in the Sioux Falls School District, do not meet the convenience standard based on potential waiting times of some of the “Super Precincts” relative to the location of other more numerous “Super Precincts,” which are heavily favored in there location to a particular geographical section of a School District and a particular voter, thus which does not realistically encompass or facilitate in a convenient manner the potential 100% voter participation default standard.
So in other words, not only is there a potential civil rights claim that “Super Precincts” violate Federal law because they discriminate against minority voters due to their locations and a convenience standard, but one, in my opinion, could argue in state court, that “Super Precincts,” as historically set-up in the Sioux Falls School District, do not meet the convenience standard or standards set forth by South Dakota statute.
It’s not just this instance. The School Board has a history of irregularity. Please name board members here. I want to be d*** sure I don’t vote for any of them in the future.
While I agree that the SF school board should be forthcoming and transparent with this bond request, I believe that they have provided a detailed summary of the costs and need for a new school. Is be interested to know what answer they could give you that you would deem “acceptable�