Latest news with #HouseBill1208
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature seeks tighter limits on voter qualifications with host of ‘election integrity' bills
A Sioux Falls resident votes in the general election on Nov. 5, 2024, at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) Lawmakers introduced more than 50 bills during the 2025 legislation session proposing to alter South Dakota's election laws. Almost half are 'election integrity' bills, aimed at election security, technology and voter qualifications. Seven of those bills are on the governor's desk. Instead of regulating the process, with bills such as those that would have shortened the voter registration deadline and prohibited automatic tabulators, lawmakers this session favored tighter controls on who can participate in South Dakota elections. That includes bills redefining residency for voter registration and creating a federal-only ballot for people such as full-time RVers, whose vehicle registration and use of a mail-forwarding service might be their only connections to the state. Attempts to remove technology from SD elections lose in court after losing at the polls Sen. John Carley, R-Rapid City, introduced a handful of election bills. 'The legislators feel closest to the people, so they see the people-oriented bills as ones they can support more strongly,' Carley said. 'Some of the election process-related items are more related to auditors and the secretary of state, which have people arguing against these bills more.' Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, said during a press conference that the recounts and post-election audits in recent elections show that elections 'are running pretty much as they should.' 'We have paper ballots, we have voter ID laws and we have post-election audits in place,' Mehlhaff said. 'I think our process is pretty good and I think it's proven to be pretty effective.' The changes may seem small with each bill, said Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, but could lead to voter disenfranchisement. 'Taken as a whole, I think voters should see this as a serious threat to our democracy.' People who register under the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or list a post office box or mail forwarding service as their address because they don't live permanently in the state, will only be able to vote on federal races — not local or state elections — if the governor signs House Bill 1208. The legislation mandates the creation of a separate, federal-only ballot for U.S. presidential and congressional races. House Bill 1066 changes the definition of a South Dakota resident eligible to vote in state and local elections to someone who lives and 'usually' sleeps in the same place for 30 consecutive days. The legislation would also require voters who register using a mail-forwarding service or other post office box as their address to additionally list 'a description of the location of the individual's habitation' to be able to vote in state and local elections. Individuals who leave the state must 'intend to return' to qualify as a resident, HB 1208 says. Hughes County Finance Officer Thomas Oliva said the bills lack the tools and structure for auditors to verify applicants meet residency requirements, so he plans to continue evaluating residency requirements with the 'honor system.' He added that HB 1208 would allow an applicant to put in whatever description they want for their living situation to get a state and local ballot without requiring the auditor to verify it. 'If there's a description of where they're living, I take it as I'm to accept that. I'm not to investigate and go to the Walmart parking lot and ask for 30 consecutive days of security footage of that RV sitting there,' Oliva said. Or, an auditor could determine the voter doesn't qualify as a resident, and refuse to give the voter a state or local ballot. Lawmakers who voted against the bills said the changes disenfranchise South Dakotans who choose to travel after living most of their lives in South Dakota, as well as other professionals who don't stay in the state at least 30 consecutive days, such as truckers. House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, attempted to amend HB 1208 to include statewide elections and ballot questions that affect fees or taxes on the separate ballot. Without including those amendments, it would subject South Dakotans living out-of-state to 'taxation and governance without representation,' she said. Her effort failed. 'These voters will still continue to pay state sales tax, they're going to continue to pay motor vehicle registration fees, they're going to continue to pay driver's license fees, they'll continue to pay county wheel taxes, and there's still the chance they could be summoned and report for jury duty,' Healy said. The ACLU sent Gov. Rhoden a letter asking him to veto HB 1208. Oliva said he hopes the state can 'come up with something better.' He added that the bills would add more work for his office to inform voters of the changes as they register to vote or apply for absentee ballots. Members of the South Dakota Canvassing Group supported most of the 'election integrity' bills introduced this session. The group has reviewed the state's voter rolls in recent years and unsuccessfully challenged the residency of some absentee voters in the June 2024 primary election. House Bill 1062 designates a county's master registration files as public records. The files include voter registration information and absentee ballot information, such as the address an absentee ballot was mailed to and the dates it was requested and returned. The bill also requires the Secretary of State's Office to update its statewide voter registration file weekly and reduces the cost to access a copy of the state's voter registration list. It currently costs $2,500 to purchase a list of South Dakota registered voters, according to the Secretary of State's Office. HB 1062 would create an electronic spreadsheet option for $225. In making voter information more public, Chapman said she worries the change will threaten domestic assault survivor safety and will 'embolden' targeted misinformation campaigns in South Dakota, inaccurately leading registered voters to believe they can't vote if they no longer reside at their voter registration address. The South Dakota Supreme Court denied a request by members of South Dakota Canvassing Group last year to order Secretary of State Monae Johnson and county-level election officials to disqualify 132 primary election ballots cast in Minnehaha County on the grounds that those voters did not meet residency requirements. The boundaries of the two precincts targeted include mail forwarding companies in Sioux Falls. Senate Bill 185, introduced by Sen. Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs, would change the challenge process. The bill allows a person to challenge someone's residency status on grounds other than 'identity,' which is what the group used to challenge the 132 ballots last year, or that a person is a felon or mentally incompetent. Challenges could also be based on residency, voting or being registered in another state, or being deceased. Challenges could only be made in the months ahead of the election, not on Election Day. Oliva and Chapman said they worked with Hulse to reach a sufficient end result. If a county auditor determines a challenge is credible, the challenged person would have to fill out a 'verification request' within 30 days to document their qualifications as a registered voter. The state Board of Elections will establish the process by which an auditor researches voters, establishes validity of a challenge and determines what documentation is needed to prove residency qualifications, Hulse told South Dakota Searchlight. The auditor must remove the person from the voter list if they don't respond with sufficient evidence and don't vote between the verification request and immediately after the next general election. An auditor can't cancel voter registration for a residency challenge within 90 days before an election. Other bills passed by both chambers are largely a reaction to 273 non-U.S. citizens being removed from South Dakota's voter roll last year. The noncitizens marked 'no' to the citizenship question on their driver's license application, but were added to the voter roll due to human error, the Secretary of State's Elections Director Rachel Soulek said at the time. Noncitizens can obtain a driver's license or state ID if they are lawful permanent residents or have temporary legal status. There's a part of the driver's license form that allows an applicant to register to vote. That part says voters must be citizens. Soulek said one of the 273 noncitizens cast a ballot. That was during the 2016 general election. Rep. Kadyn Wittman, D-Sioux Falls, criticized and voted against the bills that arose in response to that situation. 'If we are bringing legislation to try and address something that happened nearly a decade ago by a single individual with this piece of legislation,' Wittman told lawmakers, 'I cannot think of a larger form of virtue signaling than this.' South Dakota's voter registration form already requires a voter to certify they're a citizen of the United States. Senate Bill 73 would require people be South Dakota residents when they register to vote while applying for a South Dakota driver's license. Senate Bill 75 would require U.S. citizenship status be placed on a driver's license or nondriver identification card, allowing poll workers to more easily identify if a voter is eligible. Democratic lawmakers argued the bill would lead to discrimination against noncitizens outside of elections. Senate Bill 68 increases the penalty for voting illegally in the state. Rep. Logan Manhart, R-Aberdeen, carried the bill in the House, calling it an 'election integrity' bill and saying it would deter fraudulent voting and keep noncitizens from voting in elections. Chapman said it intimidates already-registered voters who might not meet new residency requirements approved by the Legislature. 'The goal here is not to protect voters or 'election integrity.' The goal is to intimidate,' Chapman said. 'The state Legislature should not be using its position to intimidate voters out of participating in our elections.' Senate Joint Resolution 503 sends a constitutional amendment to South Dakota voters clarifying a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote in the state. The resolution doesn't require the governor's approval. All of the other bills await Gov. Larry Rhoden's consideration.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In wake of Jamey Noel investigation, lawmakers advance bill to increases oversight over jail funds
The Clark County Judicial Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana, which houses the jail and the sheriff's where Jamey Noel formerly worked. (Photo by Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Bipartisan momentum continued Thursday for a bill that seeks to hold Indiana sheriffs more accountable for managing jail funds. House Bill 1208, authored by Rep. Rep. Gregory Steuerwald, R-Avon, would increase the oversight over a county jail's commissary fund, requiring the State Board of Accounts (SBOA) to create training requirements for the sheriffs responsible for their county's fund. The bill also requires sheriff's offices to report receipts and disbursements from the fund to the county fiscal body at least four times per year. Current law only requires the sheriff to provide those records semiannually. It passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee 8-0 on Thursday and now heads to the chamber floor. The legislation previously advanced unanimously from both the House Local Government Committee and the House chamber. Steuerwald's proposal comes less than a year after a massive state audit of Clark County Jail's commissary fund revealed former Sheriff Jamey Noel's 'questionable' and 'unsupported' payments totaling over $458,000. The report pointed to multiple personal vehicles, a $1,400 75-inch television and other purchases with those funds. He pleaded guilty to 27 felonies last August, including charges of theft, money laundering, corrupt business influence, official misconduct, obstruction of justice and tax evasion. He's currently serving out a 15-year prison sentence. The charges were part of a massive Indiana State Police investigation that has included more than 70 search warrants and led to five arrests. Former Indiana sheriff Jamey Noel sentenced to 15 years in prison as part of plea deal Auditors alleged he wrongly dipped or shorted more than $900,000 from the commissary fund, overall. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is now seeking to recover those funds through court-sanctioned sales of Noel's seized property. Noel was the Clark County sheriff from 2015 until the end of 2022. During his tenure, he also served as the Republican Party chair for Clark County and Indiana's 9th Congressional District, making him a sort of gatekeeper for southern Indiana political hopefuls over the last decade. 'We're trying to be very transparent, getting the sheriffs to be proactive,' said Steve Luce, executive director for the Indiana Sheriffs Association. He said Thursday that the association already had several 'very productive' meetings with SBOA to establish better commissary fund procedures in response to 'some of the activity that was getting a lot of media attention down south.' Jennifer Gauger, SBOA's chief of staff, said the state examiner 'is a big proponent of education and training, and is very happy to continue to strengthen our relationship with the sheriffs … and really help in any way.' Bill sponsor Sen. Brett Clark, R-Avon, additionally called the bill 'a collaborative effort' between the Association of Indiana Counties, the sheriffs association and SBOA. 'I think it builds on some work that was done in the past in this area to really provide some additional transparency,' he said. 'And this way, everyone in the state, all 92 counties, are on the same page … to make sure the sheriffs and their staff understand what is required of us.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Restaurants owners who testified in support of tipped wage bill were doxxed: Democrats
DENVER (KDVR) — The restaurant owners who have testified in favor of a tipped wage bill at the Colorado Capitol have been threatened and doxxed, according to the bill's sponsors. Rep. Alex Valdez, a Democrat representing downtown Denver, said he's been working to contact opposition to the bill, but so far has not been able to sit down with anyone. He called the statements made against restaurant owners who testified in support of the bill 'vile.' 'I have never seen it this bad': Colfax restaurant to close after rising costs The Colorado House Democrats also released information about flyers distributed in the Capitol, saying they were 'alarmed and disturbed by the distribution of a deeply disrespectful flyer targeting a member at the Capitol and by attacks on the business who testified in support of legislation in recent days.' 'We want to make it clear that these actions are unacceptable,' Speaker Julie McCluskie and House Majority Leader Monica Duran said in the release. They said the flyers and statements will have a 'chilling effect' on the public and legislative process. They did not provide details on what was said on the flyers. The bill in question is dubbed the Restaurant Relief Act and would require local governments with a minimum wage that exceeds the state minimum wage to provide a tip offset for tipped employees that is 'equal to the tip offset amount described in the state constitution, which is $3.02,' according to the bill's summary. The bill would put all tipped workers in the state at a minimum wage of $11.79. 'Once we had our first committee hearing, we obviously heard a lot of emotional testimony but what happened afterwards was that the folks that are in opposition to the bill decided to take to doxxing a lot of the restaurant owners who came and testified,' Valdez told FOX31 on Monday. 'The language was vile, the things that they said were vile,' he added. Kjersten Forseth is with the Colorado AFL-CIO, which opposes House Bill 1208. 'We haven't organized any tactics like that and we certainly don't support hateful or offensive tactics,' Forseth told FOX31 on Monday night. 'We're seeing a lot of passion around this bill because tens of thousands of Coloradans are worried about their wages being cut. That's money they count on for rent, groceries, utility bills and other every day expenses. As the cost of living skyrockets, we hope the legislature will reconsider cutting wages and instead prioritize saving people money.' Colorado AFL-CIO said it has requested time with Valdez and other sponsors of the bill. DPS: Lincoln Elementary student died of bacterial meningitis Valdez said that because of this, the House Finance Committee (which was scheduled to discuss the bill on Monday afternoon) would only hear from restaurant owners whose businesses have already closed, 'so that they don't fall victim to the progressives who are getting on their websites and their ratings for their restaurants and saying horrible things about the owners.' Valdez said that Denver has lost 22,000 jobs in the restaurant industry 'thus far,' noting data from the past three years, and said the rate of job loss has accelerated. 'What we're really trying to do right now is throw a lifeline to an industry that is so critical to my district. I represent downtown Denver, and a lot of the area where a lot of our restaurants are,' Valdez explained. 'It's evident what's going on, to me. And to not try and do anything about it is really just to throw our hands up and allow Denver's restaurant scene to completely disappear, which I'm not happy with.' Xcel is selling Denver's Zuni power plant. History advocates worry it will be demolished He said the bill has faced 'a lot' of opposition. Valdez also said that he expects amendments to the bill in committee, but worries that the bill's opposition will not make themselves known. 'We've never had a meeting with the opposition. We've asked them to come to the table — they never did,' Valdez said. 'This is kind of a new experience, I haven't been a part of a bill where we really couldn't engage the other side. I also haven't been part of a bill where you saw instances of doxxing either. I think it's indicative of just how ugly politics can be.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
27-02-2025
- Business
- Axios
Trolling, attacks and name-calling: Inside the restaurant wage fight
One-star Google reviews, boycotts and harassing phone calls: This is what Denver restaurants are experiencing as a result of their support for legislation that allows reduced wages for tipped workers in certain localities. Why it matters: The vitriolic atmosphere surrounding House Bill 1208 is unlike any political battle at the state Capitol in recent years and is poised to leave an embattled restaurant industry even more bruised. State of play: The aggressive opposition is led by the local chapter of the far-left Working Families Party, labor unions and the national advocacy group One Fair Wage. Through online campaigning, the organizations are focusing the debate on cutting wages of tipped workers, which is a possibility under the legislation. Opponents are targeting restaurants and breweries that testified or spoke in favor of the bill with bad reviews online that tell others to not visit. What they're saying: The effort is being compared to a "jihad" by one supporter, and the Colorado Restaurant Association called the trolling tactics "disgusting." "I've not seen it this bad, ever," the association's CEO, Sonia Riggs, tells Axios. The other side: Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, tells us that she can't believe lawmakers are "cruel enough or stupid enough" to reduce worker pay at a time when Denver is becoming less affordable. "Most tipped workers in Denver and Colorado are struggling to make ends meet," she said, noting that many of these workers are women and lower-income earners. How it works: In Colorado, employers can pay tipped employees a wage of $3.02 an hour less than the minimum in law only if tips get them to the minimum wage. All employees must make at least the state minimum wage of $14.81 per hour. The legislation — which would only apply to the handful of counties and municipalities with minimum wage rates greater than the state level — would allow restaurant owners to lower the base minimum wage for tipped workers. Supporters say this is necessary to help struggling restaurants stay afloat amid a wave of closures. The other localities affected are the city and county of Boulder and Edgewater. By the numbers: The minimum wage for tipped workers in Denver would drop $4 from $15.79 to $11.79. But all employees must still make at least the $18.81 minimum wage if tips aren't sufficient. A full-time employee could make $640 less a month, according to critics. But the reduction could also save the city's restaurant owners more than $50,000 a year, supporters say. The big picture: The legislation is driving a deep wedge between the Democratic Party and the restaurant industry with supporters and opponents on both sides. In Denver, where the minimum wage is the eighth-highest among states and localities in the nation, Mayor Mike Johnston supports the measure while city council members and the auditor are opposed. Johnston recently floated the idea of a 20% surcharge to help restaurant employees. The bottom line: The legislation recently survived its first test — an 11-2 committee vote with two Democrats in opposition. But its future is murky as the opposition accelerates and lawmakers look for a compromise deal.
