10,000 Signatures Challenged On Smoking Ban Petition

Tools

A coalition of anti-tobacco groups say 10,000 signtures on a petition to bring South Dakota's smoking ban to a public vote are invalid.

A coalition of anti-tobacco groups say 10,000 signtures on a petition to bring South Dakota's smoking ban to a public vote are invalid.

By KSFY Staff

Thousands of South Dakota establishments were to have gone smoke free July 1st but didn't because of a petition filed to block it.

South Dakota's Secretary of State's office tells Action News this is the first time the validity of a state-certified public petition has been challenged.

Earlier this year, the South Dakota Legislature approved, and Governor Rounds signed into law, a smoking ban for bars, restaurants and casinos to go into effect July 1st.

Last week, those opposed to the ban turned in a petition with 25,000 signatures to bring the issue to a public vote, though they needed just under 17,000 signatures.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson says his office certified 1,300 signatures, meaning the ban would not go into effect July 1st - but would instead go to a public vote in November 2010.

Today anti-tobacco groups, including the American Heart Association, say nearly 10,000 petition signatures are not valid and they are challenging its validity.

This afternoon, we spoke with the American Heart Association's Darrin Smith. He tells us the challenge was filed with the Secretary of State's office in Pierre at 4 o'clock Thursday afternoon. He said, "Several thousand people who signed the petition sheet are not registered voters. That was a very common mistake, in fact, the most common mistake made. Next, would probably be notary irregularities. There were several thousand signatures that we feel are invalid as a result of that."

One of the key players behind the petition to bring the smoking ban to a public vote is Larry Mann, a well known lobbyist for the video lottery industry. He says the process of gathering signatures for this petition was legal and followed all necessary rules as set out by the state.

It will be up to the South Dakota Secretary of State's office to determine the validity of the smoking ban petition.

We asked Deputy Secretary of State Teresa Bray this afternoon how they will validate the 10,000 signatures in question. "It is quite involved. Just doing the random sampling took us about 3 days to check and that was about 1,300 signatures so you can imagine how long it will take to do 10,000 signatures."

© 2009 KSFY Action News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View comments

The following comments do not necessarily represent the views of KSFY.com. Users have agreed to these terms and in doing so accept full responsibility for their comments. Moderation is limited.

Saturday, Jul 4 at 4:35 AM Robert Feal-Martinez wrote ...

How about this for a study. I would point out that Professor Micheal Siegal is now Game keeper turned Poacher he now believes that the science behind most modern ant tobacco causes is JUNK. Well with this study I guess he would know. No disrespect Michael. http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html

Saturday, Jul 4 at 4:22 AM Robert Feal-Martinez wrote ...

And who are the biggest sponsor of the CDC. That would be Big D.

Friday, Jul 3 at 7:58 PM Common Sense in Canton wrote ...

Just a few thoughts...a person working in a bar applied for the job knowing that it was a smoking environment...they made the CHOICE! Working as a mechanic, a farmer, or any other job exposes people to all kinds of things that may be deemed as 'unhealthy'...maybe the government should just ban all jobs because of the potential health risks...that's definitely the direction we're headed in. Stop whining, make your own choices and let others make theirs..enough already!

Friday, Jul 3 at 7:38 PM to whom it may concern wrote ...

But you know, I'm a smoker and have been paying for health insurance for 10 years-still have never had to use any of my health benefit but I just keep payin in and payin in. So ya, it may cost us money to have smokers in this world, but us smokers are paying for that right. look at all the money I've paid in so far and haven't used anything to show for it. There's my two cents worth.

Friday, Jul 3 at 5:19 PM Brookings Anti-Tobacco wrote ...

For all those that want the FACTS from our US research (which is definetly DEFINETLY not the WHO) here is the link to the latest information from the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

Friday, Jul 3 at 11:45 AM Robert Feal-Martinez wrote ...

Anon: 9.58 Your own US research showed that to be a fallacy, a bar worker exposed to an average smoking bar for 40 hours a week wearing a machine that recorded their intake, which was then analysed showed that by worker would inhale the equivalent of 1/500th of one cigarette a shift, or 12 to 14 a year. The WHO has concluded that 4 to 6 cigarettes a day does not result in any increased risk of fatal diseases. So you are simply wrong. I am a life long never smoker but a believer in the truth.

Friday, Jul 3 at 8:51 AM Anon wrote ...

It's not about smokers rights or customers rights. The actual push behind smoking bans is for safe working environments for employees. All employers are mandated to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Unless a bar owners is providing a respirator for my bartender....... And 50 cigarettes an hour for 8 hours 5 days a week is a far greater exposure for a worker then going to the bar for 6 hours on a Friday night. And don't post--they don't have to work their! Not legal to say!

Friday, Jul 3 at 7:59 AM Brookings Anti-Tobacco wrote ...

We can go back and forth about who has the right to either smoke or breathe clean air. But if you want to know why we want to ban smoking look at how much we spend on health care for the underinsured and uninsured who use tobacco products. We spend nationally over 1 trillion on those individuals and South Dakoat alone spends over 270 million a YEAR! No need for a stimulus plan if everyone quit smoking. But people want their rights...and that right would be to pay the taxes for our healthcare.

Friday, Jul 3 at 3:38 AM Robert Feal-Martinez wrote ...

What are the anti smoking zealots afraid of, that democracy may prevail and the people actually say no to the ban. One also questions how much of the charitable funds donated have been abused in this challenge to what was certified by the State

Thursday, Jul 2 at 11:41 PM Emrld49 wrote ...

I sincerely hope those signatures are found to be invalid. Then all the whining smokers will have to stop smoking in the bars!! Like a previous poster mentioned, what of the many chemicals are you inhaling are good for you? Name one, I beg you!!

Thursday, Jul 2 at 10:08 PM JUST STOP wrote ...

Just stop smoking! it will be good for you and your kids. Someone name one good thing about smoking?? didnt think so.

Thursday, Jul 2 at 8:31 PM Common Sense in Canton wrote ...

To the whiner interviewd at Skelly's by Chuck Harmer at the top of the 6 o'clock news: If you don't want a chemical substance going into your body, as you said-DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW SMOKING!!! IT ISN'T LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE CHOICE TO GO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! By the way...IT'S A BAR!!! Isn't that the point? If you are a Catholic and choose to go to a Baptist church, you do so knowing that you may not agree with them...are you going to cry about it to have Baptist churches banned?!?

Thursday, Jul 2 at 8:28 PM Thomas Laprade wrote ...

I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Thursday, Jul 2 at 8:20 PM Thomas Laprade wrote ...

What if the governments mandated that all currently smoke-free hospitality venues MUST provide a smoking section to accommodate smokers, against the wishes of business owners who choose to go smoke-free of their own free will? That wouldn't be fair, would it? Neither are government mandated smoking bans. http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

KSFY.com and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.

I have read and agree to the terms

Hide comments

YouNews

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

On Demand

Stock Quotes

Flash Poll

Do you agree with the new recommendation that women should wait until they are 21 to get their first pap smear test?

  • Yes
  • No

AP Video