Jonathan Ellis

jonellis@argusleader.com

South Dakota voters want the payday loan industry out of the state.

Voters approved Initiated Measure 21 Tuesday, which caps the amount of interest and fees that money lenders can charge at 36 percent per year. Payday loan companies that offer small, short-term loans, were charging interest rates that in some cases exceeded 500 percent.

With 660 of 707 precincts reporting by 11:30 p.m., the measure was winning in a runaway with more than 75 percent voting in favor.

Separately, voters were rejecting Amendment U, which would have capped interest rates at 18 percent. However, the amendment, sponsored by the payday lending industry, contained a loophole that would have allowed money lenders to charge whatever they wanted as long as a borrower signed an agreement.

ELECTION:Live S.D. election results: President, Congress, ballot measures

Voters also approved Amendment S, the so-called Marsy’s Law, which expands victim rights to include required notification when a criminal is released from jail, notification of court hearings and the requirement that state’s attorneys confer with victims during plea agreements.

Two other issues, Amendment R and Initiated Measure 22, were too close to call at deadline.

All were among 10 issues on Tuesday’s ballot, the most statewide measures since 2006.

Going into the election, supporters of the 36 percent rate cap worried that Amendment U’s place on the ballot would confuse voters. The decision by the industry to sponsor Amendment U underscored the lengths to which the industry went to win.

RELATED:Live S.D. election results: State Senate, House, county

Last year, while opponents of the industry gathered signatures to put the rate cap on the ballot, a title loan executive in Georgia was accused of paying van loads of homeless people to occupy the Sioux Falls restaurant of Steve Hildebrand, a former Democratic political operative who joined with former Republican state Rep. Steve Hickey to sponsor the measure. For several weeks last summer, out-of-state homeless people were descending on Hildebrand’s restaurant and occupying tables during peak lunch hours, transported in by vans from hotels on the west side of town.

Dave Hrusovsky said he voted no on every ballot measure except Initiated Measure 21.

“I just think people don’t need to get exploited,” he said of his reason for supporting the 36 percent rate cap.

Mary Roemeling also said she voted no on everything except IM 21. She said she once worked for a credit card company and believed the payday loan industry should be better regulated.

But Danny Jolivette II had misgivings about IM 21 because he said he occasionally uses the loans to cover shortfalls. While he appreciated the lower interest rate, he was worried the industry couldn’t exist without the higher interest rates that cover for those who default on their loans.

“I’m kind of mixed on it,” he said. “I’d like them lower, but at the same time I’d like to be able to get a loan when I need one.”

VOTING:Vote counting smooth, slow in Minnehaha County

Hildebrand said the campaign spent years educating people about the debt cycle that some low-income families find themselves in after taking out payday loans. But he also said that it required a lot of self education on the part of voters to know which ballot measure was supported by the industry and which one ended high-interest loans.

“They paid close attention to the trickery and gamesmanship that has been going on with the payday lenders,” he said.

Voters were also persuaded by advertising behind Marsy’s Law. Named after Marsy Nicholas, a California student who was stalked and killed in the 1980s, the measure received more than $2 million in funding from her brother, Henry Nicholas, who has financed similar measures nationwide.

Ken Brannon, a former correctional worker, voted for the measure based off of advertising he saw.

“I think all victims should be notified if the guy or gal comes out of prison,” he said. “I would want to.”

Here is a glance at the percentage on ballot issues as of 11:30 p.m.:

Amendment R: 50.61 Yes, 49.39 No

The measure, which allows the Legislature to establish a separate governing body for the state’s four technical institutes, had strong backing from Gov. Dennis Daugaard, as well as bi-partisan political support among Republican and Democratic leaders. Advocates felt technical schools needed a governing body that would emphasize the needs of technical education. The limited opposition objected to creating another un-elected board that could have been influenced by business.

Amendment T: 42.97 Yes, 57.03 No

Legislative districts are redrawn every 10 years, a requirement of the South Dakota Constitution to ensure that the state’s population is equally distributed among districts. The process of redrawing those districts has been done by the Legislature.

Amendment T would have created an independent commission to handle that duty. Supporters say an independent commission would discourage gerrymandering. Opponents however argued that gerrymandering didn’t occur, and they said it would take the duty out of the hands of elected officials and place it in the hands of un-elected, unaccountable board members.

Amendment V: 44.51 Yes, 55.49 No

It would have established non-partisan elections in which candidates appeared on ballots without political party affiliation. Also, it would have created an open primary in which any voter could cast a ballot. The top vote getters, regardless of party, would have competed against each other in the general election.

Initiated Measure 22: 51.62 Yes, 48.38 No

The sprawling reform bill would have created an ethics commission, require lobbyists to disclose gifts to public officials and established a program in which registered voters could designate two $50 credits – known as “Democracy credits” – to political candidates of their choosing.

It was this last part of the measure that opponents focused their attacks. The opposition to IM 22 argued that tax dollars would be diverted from basic government services in order to fund political campaigns.

Supporters dubbed it an anti-corruption measure which would bring greater accountability to government, political campaigns, lawmakers and lobbyists.

Initiated Measure 23: 20.31 Yes, 79.69 No

Since 1946, South Dakota has been a right-to-work state, which means workers aren’t required to join a union in order to get a job. IM 23 would have allowed unions to charge fees to employees who were covered by a collective bargaining agreement, even if those employees are not union members.

The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry opposed the measure, arguing it would force workers to pay union dues even if they didn’t want to join unions. Supporters said the measure would eliminate “free riders,” people who reap the benefits of collective bargaining agreements while not paying to support the unions that negotiated the benefits.

Referred Law 19: 28.95 Yes, 71.05 No

In 2015, state lawmakers revamped the time period candidates for office could collect petitions to be eligible for the ballot. Lawmakers did so in response to two U.S. Senate candidates in 2014 who submitted petitions that were later deemed to be ineligible. But because of the short time period to challenge signatures, lawmakers wanted to give the secretary of state more time to review challenges to petitions.

The law allowed candidates to being collecting petitions in December, rather than Jan. 1 of each election year. Petitions would be due on the first Tuesday of March as opposed to the last Tuesday.

But the issue became controversial when lawmakers also included a provision that prohibited registered Republicans or Democrats from signing the petitions of independent candidates. The change would have made it more difficult for independents to find the required number of signatures to make the ballot, but lawmakers argued the change would pre-empt rogue Republicans and Democrats from re-registering as independents and then running campaigns that undermined

The idea was controversial enough that opponents collected enough signatures to refer the issue to voters.

Referred Law 20: 28.87 Yes, 71.13 No

In 2014, voters approved an increase in the statewide minimum wage to $8.50 an hour with an annual inflationary increase. But lawmakers tweaked the ballot measure to allow employers to pay children under 18 $7.50 an hour. The so-called youth minimum wage made it illegal for employers to displace older workers in order to hire young people at the lower wage.

Backers of the original ballot measure were upset that the Legislature changed the language and collected enough signatures to refer the issue to voters.

Supporters of a lower wage said it would provide youths with a “training wage” that would encourage businesses to hire untrained young people. But opponents argued it discriminated against young people, especially those who contribute to family incomes or save money for college.