PIERRE, S.D. – The South Dakota House on Tuesday rejected a bill that would have banned paid petition circulators, after opponents warned the proposal directly conflicted with long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could cost the state millions in legal fees.
House Bill 1087 failed on a 28–38 vote, with four excused, following extended floor debate over ballot access, outside influence, and the cost of defending a likely lawsuit.
The bill would have prohibited compensation for people who collect signatures for ballot initiatives and referendums. Supporters said the change would protect South Dakota’s initiative process from well-funded national campaigns.
Prime sponsor Rep. Travis Ismay, R-Vale, urged lawmakers to stand up to outside interests, arguing grassroots groups cannot compete financially with professional petition firms.
“This bill will possibly be referred to the Supreme Court,” Ismay told the House. “But I ask you, do you have the courage and the fortitude to stand up for your constituents?” he said. “Please join me. Be a warrior for your people. Let’s make the process equal and send a message to all out-of-state interests.”
Ismay said that repeated ballot fights financially exhaust South Dakota citizens, contending that paid circulators and out-of-state money have distorted the initiative process’s original intent. He also acknowledged that a court fight could cost South Dakota taxpayers $2-4 million.
Opponents did not dispute concerns about misinformation or aggressive signature gathering, but said the bill crossed a clear constitutional line.
Rep. Matt Roby, R-Watertown, told lawmakers the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1988 that banning paid petition circulators violates the First Amendment — a decision later reaffirmed.
“The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 ruled nine to zero, it was a conservative-led Supreme Court,” Roby said. “ChiefJustice William Rehnquist’s (court ruled) that banning paid petition circulators violates theFirst Amendment. Roby said that decision was upheld against in 1999.
Roby warned passage would almost certainly trigger litigation the state is unlikely to win.
“This violates the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “We know all it’s going to do is cost taxpayer dollars to defend the lawsuit that will inevitably come and line the pockets of lawyers.”
Supporters countered that lawsuits may be necessary to preserve what they see as a corrupted initiative process. Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, cited personal experiences with paid circulators misrepresenting petitions and said he was willing to risk legal action to “clean up” the system.
Other lawmakers argued banning paid circulation would disproportionately harm working-class residents who cannot afford to take unpaid time off to gather signatures.
