Petitions signatures against smoking ban tell another story

Gordon Garnos

THE ISSUES: My column of a couple of weeks ago was critical of those who opposed the smoking ban that was to go into effect July 1. No, I was not opposed to the petition drive to bring the issue to a vote of the voters of South Dakota. The right to petition is All-American. What I didn’t care for was all that it will do is delay South Dakota from becoming a smoke-free state. When delving into the reasons for the formal protest of the petition drive I discovered it told another story.

I SMILED the other day when I read that a coalition of health advocates claimed that almost 10,000 signatures collected by the opponents of a statewide smoking ban are invalid. If they prove to be invalid, those opposed to the ban that was supposed to start July 1, will discover their efforts in collecting those signatures was wasted. Of course, if those signatures turn out to be bad, the opponents of the smoking ban will not have enough to qualify for the November 2010 ballot.

Oops! I said I smiled. That was premature. As I read through the story I learned the reasons for the formal protest of these 9,891 supposed-to-be invalid signatures. My smile turned to a frown, and for good reason. As far as I’m concerned those reasons for the formal protest tell yet another story, a story none of us should be proud of.

There were 3,800 of those signatures on petitions that were allegedly not properly notarized. Other issues found by the proponents on those petitions included duplicate signatures, which is also a real No, No, individual signature blocks that were not complete and invalid circulators. These errors are clearly reason to have them rejected, according to South Dakota law.

AT THE TIME of this writing, Secretary of State Chris Nelson said it could take weeks to verify or discredit those 9,891 signatures.

However, the errors noted above is only about half the number of signatures being said are invalid. Another 4,000 signatures are believed to be from people not registered to vote. To me, that is as big a story as the formal protest by the proponents of the smoking ban. It also begs the question as to what is worse, not bothering to register to be a voter, or registering but failing to exercise the privilege to cast your ballot?

The opponents claimed when they filed the petitions they had 25,000 signatures on their petitions. Larry Mann, a lobbyist, who headed up the petition drive, admitted there could be a few names on those petitions that might prove to be invalid, but now 9,891? Time will tell.

Of the alleged 4,000 unregistered voters out of 25,000 to me, and should be to others, is a damn rotten batting average. While South Dakota has enjoyed better voting turnouts in past local, state and national elections than most other states, we don’t exactly have a record we should be proud of either.

IN SNOOPING the internet I discovered the voting-eligible population (VEP) turnout rate for South Dakota in the last presidential election (2008) was 63.8 percent. The United States turnout was 61.7 percent.

Our neighbor to the east, Minnesota, enjoyed the highest turnout at 78.2 percent, followed by Wisconsin at 72.5 percent and Maine at 71.4 percent. They were the only states reaching above the 70 percent mark.

The lowest turnout was Hawaii with only a 50.5 percent turnout at the polls. It was just one of 13 states in the 50 percent range. The rest were in the 60 percent range.

THE QUESTION I have should 60-plus percent of the voters make such important decisions as to who will lead this nation for the next four years? Or establish policy that must be abided by the other 40 percent as well?

I must admit I was surprised at the turnout percentages. I thought they would be lower. At the same time, what about the alleged 4,000 in this case who have not considered it even important to register to vote for a president, or a governor, or even the mayor of a city or a school board member?

When those 9,891 signatures are checked, we all may be surprised as to the outcome, but for now I have to believe any number of those unregistered voters are too many.

I ALSO FOUND it near-funny that many of the signatories must feel it less important to vote for a president than it is to try to stop a ban on smoking.

At the same time when we look back at the election of school board members in Sioux Falls only a few more than three percent made the decision as to who would lead the largest school district in South Dakota.

Watertown just went through an election to name five councilmen and a mayor. Thirty three percent of the city’s voters decided who would be these councilmen and in the runoff election for mayor only 24 percent of the voters went to the polls.

SO, WHAT IS worse, not registering to be a voter, or being a registered voter, but not take advantage of this American, democratic right? In my book they are both about the same and that is nothing short of shameful….

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion, retiring after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.