A group of citizens calling for a referendum of South Dakota’s SB 201 turned in around 28,000 signatures this week.
Jim Eschenbaum, Hand County Commissioner, Miller, South Dakota, served as the chairman of the petition drive.
He said the Secretary of State told him that 17,508 signatures were needed in order to refer the issue back to the voters and secure a spot on the ballot.
Eschenbaum said the group had planned to turn in signatures Monday, June 24, 2024, because that was 90 days after the day they obtained their first signature. The Secretary of State’s office told them that Tuesday, June 25, was their due date, but in an abundance of caution and to avoid their signatures being thrown out, the group decided to turn signatures on June 24.
“We had set a goal of 25,000. We weren’t quite to that goal by 10 am Monday morning, but we figured we’d be close,” he said.
“We turned in about 28,000 signatures,” he said. The petition gatherers met together in Pierre on Tuesday, and actually had in hand another approximately 2,000 signatures, but those were not submittable because the group had already submitted and verified their packet of signature sheets the day before.
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — If all goes the way that opponents want, South Dakota voters will get the final word this fall on how carbon-dioxide pipelines and other transmission facilities should be governed in the state.
Opponents believe they have gathered enough signatures to force SB201 onto the November election ballot. They announced on Monday that they intend to hand-deliver their petitions at 4 p.m. today to the Secretary of State office. (NOTE:The petitions actually were delivered on Monday afternoon, but a rally still occurred Tuesday. See related story.) They need at least 17,508 valid signatures of registered South Dakota voters to make it the 13th statewide referral since 1972.
The complex legislation took various twists and turns on its way to the desk of Governor Kristi Noem, who signed the final version into law. The Senate had approved its version on a vote of 23-11; the House of Representatives passed a different version on a 40-30 vote; and the compromise that was reached in a Senate-House conference committee received final approval by votes of 24-10 in the Senate and 39-31 in the House.
That came after the state Public Utilities Commission last year denied CO2-pipeline permit applications from two companies. Opponents held a rally at the Capitol and formed the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance.
The sharp divide carried forward into the Republican legislative primaries, with opponents of SB201 taking out many of the legislation’s supporters.
Here’s a look at referral outcomes from the past 50 years.
The deadline looms for the petition drive to refer SB 201 to South Dakota voters.
Concerned citizens across the state are gathering signatures of those who believe the issue should be placed on the ballot this fall.
The deadline to turn in all signatures is June 24, 2024. The group hopes to gather about 25,000 signatures, which will give them a few thousand extra in case of errors.
Senate Bill 201, which sparked significant debate during the 2024 legislative session, takes away the rights of townships and counties to establish pipeline and electrical line “setback” limits that are more restrictive than the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission’s setbacks. For example, Brown County approved a 1,500 foot setback for carbon pipelines going past residences and places of business. If the SD PUC grants Summit Carbon Solutions a permit, and establishes a smaller setback than 1,500 feet, the state setback will override the county setback.
Tina Mulally, a Rapid City small business owner and District 35 Representative serves as the treasurer for South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, a group overseeing the petition effort.
