SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) -- A judge on Monday decided in favor of State Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon in a ruling that keeps secret the name of an anonymous donor who gave $750,000 to the 2006 abortion ban campaign in South Dakota.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson, who originated the case, said he would talk with Attorney General Marty Jackley before deciding what to do next.
"When we started this suit back in 2006, 2007, we were simply asking a simple question: Does the statute require the reporting of the origin of the money?" Nelson said.
Hunt said he expected Nelson to appeal the ruling to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
During the 2006 campaign, Hunt formed Promising Future Inc., which had one shareholder who made three separate $250,000 donations to Vote Yes For Life -- the organization promoting a measure that would have banned most abortions in South Dakota.
ADVERTISEMENT
Voters rejected the 2006 ballot issue 56 percent to 44 percent.
Hunt, a staunch abortion foe, has said the corporation did not meet the legal definition of a ballot question committee. Such committees were required to file financial reports.
Hunt said the donor is a South Dakotan who was afraid of violent retaliation.
Since the donation, Nelson has argued that the donor's name should be revealed, calling Promising Future a "shell" corporation formed to hide the identity.
Sioux Falls Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell had dismissed the case in August 2007. Nelson appealed to the state Supreme Court, which sent it back to Caldwell.
"What this does mean, of course, is that now we have won twice at the trial court level," Hunt said in an interview Monday.
He said he hasn't studied Caldwell's opinion in depth but that the judge also thinks an appeal of her decision is likely. Caldwell addressed some of the constitutional issues "and ruled in our favor," Hunt said.
Caldwell's ruling was on Hunt's motion for summary judgment, which asked her to decide the underlying issue: whether the law that was on the books in 2006 requires disclosure of the name.
ADVERTISEMENT
The law in effect at the time has since been repealed, and Caldwell's ruling called it "vague and unconstitutional."
