Attorney General Ballot Explanation Released for Constitutional Amendment Establishing Open Primary Elections 

Pat Powers

Attorney General Ballot Explanation Released for Constitutional Amendment Establishing Open Primary Elections 

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed constitutional amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on a petition that will be circulated by the sponsor of the amendment.   If the sponsor obtains a sufficient  number of signatures (27,741) by November 6, 2017, as certified by the Secretary of State, the amendment will be placed on the ballot for the November 2018 general election.

The amendment is entitled “An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing open primary elections.”

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment and a description of the legal consequences. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed amendment.

AG Statement for Initiated Constitutional Amendment (Open Primary Elections) by Pat Powers on Scribd

To date the Attorney General has released Attorney General Explanations for the following:

  1. An initiated measure requiring students to use rooms designated for the same biological sex, and requiring public schools to provide a reasonable accommodation for students whose gender identity is not the same as their biological sex
  2. An initiated measure authorizing a South Dakota-licensed physician to prescribe drugs that a terminally ill patient may take for the purpose of ending life
  3. An initiated measure to legalize marijuana for medical use
  4. An initiated measure to legalize certain amounts of marijuana, drugs made from marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, and to regulate and tax marijuana establishments
  5. An initiated measure requiring people to use certain rooms designated for the same biological sex
  6. An initiated measure to legalize all quantities of marijuana
  7. An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution regarding initiated and referred measures
  8. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, creating a government accountability board, and changing certain initiative and referendum provisions (VERSION #1)
  9. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, creating a government accountability board, and changing certain initiative and referendum provisions (VERSION #2)
  10. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, and creating a government accountability board (VERSION#3)
  11. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution changing campaign finance and lobbying laws, and creating a government accountability board (VERSION#4)

-30-

8 thoughts on “Attorney General Ballot Explanation Released for Constitutional Amendment Establishing Open Primary Elections ”

  1. This second attempt at Open Primaries so soon after being defeated at the ballot box yells hypocrisy by the Democrats crying about IM 22.

    V was defeated last year by the people but here we go again…

  2. The new attempt is different because it doesn’t affect party identification of candidates and force a “nonpartisan” primary. The open primary is still open to all registered voters, but at least we’ll know the party affiliation of the R, D, I, and other candidates.

    1. Well, but…

      There is that part about eliminating all but the two top vote-getters. Meaning it is virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to have a place on the ballot in November

      1. Well, but , with independents outnumbering Democrats in SD at present, it’s always possible that an independent (or someone unaligned with either major political party) may be among the top two vote-getters in an open primary. Especially if the independent were well-funded, with the Democrats currently lacking significant campaign financial support), an independent candidate or candidates could win one or more primary races.

        1. I can’t agree with you on that point. Independents don’t vote for independents. The might register independent, but they tend to vote along party lines:

          …independents who lean toward a party — or “independent leaners” — behave like partisans, on average. They tend to be loyal to their party’s candidate in elections. They tend to have favorable views of many political figures in their party. They are not much more likely to identify as ideologically moderate. To be sure, independent leaners are not as partisan as the strongest partisans. But they resemble weaker partisans much more than they do real independents. In actuality, real independents make up just over 10 percent of Americans, and a small fraction of Americans who actually vote.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/08/most-political-independents-actually-arent/

        2. Vs. the Independents already get general election access under the current system…

          No thanks!

    2. ….and the same stupid system as California now it appears! I don’t want SD to be like California!,

      NO!

  3. Strategically, this is a much better attempt by the Democrats at getting an open primary system. The biggest argument against Amendment V was that it hid party labels, which took information away from voters. It also applied to all statewide elections, which mean the primary ballot would have been much longer.

    Amendment V was defeated 55%-45%. That gap will almost certainly be narrower if this proposal gets on the ballot.

Comments are closed.