A Brief History of the Attempt to Take Away Our Vote

1. South Dakota became the first state in the nation to have referendum and initiative in 1898.
initiative: the people can propose a new law or amend an existing law referendum: the people can vote on legislation that has been passed by the state Legislature or by county government.

2. Fast forward to 2001 and 2002. In both Bon Homme and Hutchinson counties, someone wanted to put up 3,200 head hog feedlots. Large numbers of local residents came to the zoning meeting saying they didn't want them. The Zoning Board granted conditional use permits anyway.

3, Residents then collected the signatures necessary to put the issue on the ballot. The corporations said, "no, no, no. Once we get a permit, voters can't take it back." The circuit court ruled in favor of the hog farms, and the issue was taken to the South Dakota Supreme Court. The Supreme court said, this is a democracy. Of course, people have a right to vote and ordered a vote in both counties in separate cases. The citizens of Hutchinson County voted 2 to 1 against the feedlots. The citizens of Bon Homme County voted 3 to 1 against the feedlots.

4. The corporations got the governor and the legislature to pass a law in 2003, saying people couldn't vote on zoning permits. Over 25,000 South Dakotans then signed petitions to prevent this law (HB 1281) from going into effect and also putting it on the November 2004 ballot.

5. Realizing they were going to lose in a general election, the 2004 legislature repealed HB 1281 on their own in 2004, so there would not be a vote.

6. The 2004 Senate then tried to take away the right to vote in an underhanded way. They passed SB 163. Jim Abourezk who had represented residents in the Bon Homme and Hutchinson county cases before the South Dakota Supreme Court wrote the legislature characterizing SB 163 as simply a disguised version of HB 1281. He said, it too would infringe upon citizens’ right to bring conditional use permits to a vote. When this became public the legislature was flooded with opposition to SB 163. One of the sponsors of the bill withdrew support and the bill was killed in House committee by a vote of 10 to 3. Again, the right to vote had been preserved.

7. The zoning ordinance adopted by Moody County was specifically written to get around the citizens' right to vote. The people in Moody County did not know that. Neither did the county commissioners. (Todd Kays of First District Planners revealed this in personal telephone conversation with Bill Du Bois)
However, when citizens in Moody County collected the necessary signatures to put two large dairy feedlots on the ballot, a local judge ruled they had lost their right to vote. He said, they should have objected when the new zoning law was passed.

The Supreme Court will soon rule on whether Moody County citizens lost their right to bring those two permits to a vote.

8. Moody County also brought a new tactic to the front. The law says citizens must collect 5% of the signatures of registered voters in the county within 20 days after publication of the approval of a permit. In Moody County, commissioners simply refused to publish. The clock would never start ticking. The feedlot owners began building. Repeated requests for them to publish were ignored.
The apparent logic was that citizens wouldn't dare turn down a permit if the operation was already built. Finally, one Moody County commissioner succeeded in forcing a vote on a side issue relating to the permits. He lost 4-1 but that decision was published and residents then collected the signatures necessary to bring it to a vote. As noted above, the case ended up in court. But by that time, the feedlot dairy owners were already millions of dollars into construction.

Feedlot advocates have tried spreading the rumor that the county will be sued if the Supreme Court rules citizens can vote and the permits are turned down by voters.

9. Commissioners in all counties are being told by feedlot advocates they must approve all feedlot permits. Feedlot proponents argue all feedlots are created equal and have equal protection under the law. If counties approve one feedlot, they must approve them all. Executive Director Mike Held of the Farm Bureau has said that if counties turn down feedlots, "There are going to be some counties sued into bankruptcy." (source: "Friendly Fire," WNAX radio, April 29, 2005)

10. However, there is a U.S. Supreme Court case that prohibits local governments from being personally sued for their decisions.