SDGOP notifies membership – Time to stop anti-transparency Amendment V

(From my mailbox – PP)

sdgop
Greetings Fellow Republicans,

I wanted to take a moment as a follow up to the State Convention to discuss an important issue on the ballot this fall: Defeating Amendment V – Rick Weiland’s plan to elect Democrats by hiding party labels on the ballot.

The Republican Party overwhelmingly passed a Resolution at the State Convention opposing Amendment V. Senator Thune and Governor Daugaard spent significant time discussing the negative impacts of this Constitutional overhaul in their remarks on Friday evening at the Convention.

What Senator Thune says about Amendment V:

Amendment V is an attempt by South Dakota Democrats to hide candidate party affiliation on the ballot from voters. Rather than run on their party’s principles and policies it seems they are desperately looking for a way to run from them. I’m opposing Amendment V because I believe voters deserve more transparency on their ballot, not less.

Governor Daugaard said:

I believe political parties – all parties – serve an important role in our democracy. They crystalize issues. They bring like-minded people together. They help the electorate make sense of the electoral system.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with Amendment V, here are some of the facts.
Amendment V is a Constitutional overhaul that would take information away from voters at the time they need it most. This amendment would make three major changes to our election system:

  • First, it would do away with partisan primaries. Every candidate from every party would run on the same ballot, with all registered voters participating in a single primary for each office. The top two candidates, regardless of primary, would advance to the November ballot.
  • Second, it would do away with the State Convention’s role in selecting candidates for statewide office. Our state convention would no longer nominate candidates for the constitutional offices. These would also be selected through a non-partisan primary by all registered voters.
  • Third, it would take party labels off the ballot. Not only would it allow all voters to vote in the primaries, it would actually hide candidates’ partisan affiliations from the voters.

The third change is very troubling. Rick Weiland and the other proponents of this amendment talk a lot about “transparency.” However, they are trying to make our ballot less transparent – by hiding party labels. As Republicans, we need to see this amendment for what it is. Rick Weiland and the other Democrats have realized that, after eight damaging years of the Obama Administration, South Dakota voters simply don’t trust Democratic candidates to represent our values.

Rather than changing this policies to appeal to South Dakota voters, they are trying to hide behind a less transparent ballot that removes the word “Democrat.” It’s really quite something – the Democrats are admitting that the word “Democrat” hurts them when they run for office!

You will be hearing more about this issue in the weeks and months to come. In the meantime, if you’d like take a look at the Resolution that was passed overwhelmingly at the SDGOP State Convention, you can go here (Resolution #5) – http://southdakotagop.com/about-the-party/resolutions/resolutions/
If you’d like to volunteer to help defeat this terrible ballot initiative or would like to donate to the cause, please reach out to me at this time.

As always, contact me with any questions.

Thanks!
Ryan Budmayr
Executive Director
South Dakota Republican Party
www.southdakotagop.com

18 thoughts on “SDGOP notifies membership – Time to stop anti-transparency Amendment V

  1. Anonymous

    I will vote against this but in favor of the ethics commission.

    I don’t honestly understand why the SDGOP isn’t trying to kill everything.

    I suppose it’s hard to kill everything as a party when Glodt and Mickelson are pushing measures.

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      You want taxpayer funded political campaigns? To me, that’s just as offensive as the party hiding measure.

      1. Anonymous

        I don’t agree with the tax payer funded part. I do think this state could use an ethics commission. Wielands bill is probably junk. It should die and then the legislature can come up with an idea.

  2. Anonymous

    Daugaard’s quote is so much better than Thune’s time to get a new writer if you are Thune.

  3. Wazzzuupp

    This will be tough for R’s to oppose. It’s tough to oppose letting more people participate in electing our leaders. A lot of big name R’s are lining up behind Amendment V in Sioux Falls and Rapid City and I heard more are on the way, along with some other surprises. GOP should embrace V. Remember when they wanted to be the “Big Tent” party? Isn’t it a basic American principle of one person, one vote? How do you oppose that with a straight face?

      1. Pat Powers Post author

        The only names I’ve seen in favor of it haven’t been involved in years

    1. Anonymous

      I would guess you aren’t opposed for the dead voting, providing they vote for Demoncrats-same for illegal aliens. Name the big names if you’ve got them. Being a big tent party doesn’t mean giving up principals, unlike “Big Tent” under the Dumbocrat definition.

  4. Anonymous

    V needs to be defeated. I see California has 2 democrats running for US Senate seat…GOP doesn’t even have a chance.

  5. Anonymous

    If we have tax payer funded elections does that mean Noem and Mickelsons war chests go away and Rick weiland gets the same amount of money as them?

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      No. It means that candidates who can’t raise money can apply to receive taxpayer funds.

  6. MC

    Democrats can’t win elections honestly, so they have to back door their way in by using tactics like this.

  7. Troy Jones

    I agree Mike. But, I think it is more. It is an admission they can’t win elections because their core values and principles are abhorrent to a majority of South Dakotans.

    1. Anonymous

      The ‘core values and principles’ of the SDGOP are abhorrent. Change the name to GOCP: Grand Old Corrupt Party.