Attorney General Jackley Releases Draft Explanation for Proposed “Top Two Primary” Constitutional Amendment
PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has released a draft ballot explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment regarding top-two primary elections.
State law requires the Attorney General to draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. The Attorney General’s explanation is meant to be an “objective, clear, and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.
The proposed amendment would allow top-two primary elections, regardless of political party, for Governor, legislative office, county office, United States Senator, and United States Representative. The two top vote getters in each primary would advance to the general election.
State law requires the Attorney General to draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. Attorney General Jackley’s draft explanation on this proposed amendment can found here.
Once the Attorney General has filed and posted the draft explanation, the public has 10 days to provide written comment. The deadline for comments on this amendment explanation is March 9, 2023, at the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota. The final explanation is due to the Secretary of State on March 29, 2023.
The draft amendment would require 35,017 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.
To file written comments on a draft Attorney General’s explanation please use one of the following methods below. Copies of all received comments will be posted on this website.
Comments may be submitted via mail, or through hand delivery, to the Attorney General’s Office at:
Office of the Attorney General
Ballot Comment
1302 E. Hwy. 14, Suite 1
Pierre, SD 57501
Comments that are hand delivered must be received by the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota, by March 9, 2023. Comments that are mailed must be received by the Attorney General’s Office before the deadline expires to be accepted.
Comments may also be emailed to [email protected] by March 9, 2023. Comments should be clearly expressed in the body of the email. The Attorney General’s Office will not open attachments in an effort to prevent malware or other digital threats. Please include your name and contact information when submitting your comment. The title of the comment must be included in the subject line of the email.
-30-
well that’ll be the final nail in the coffin of the SDDP
oo oo oo let’s add online home voting to this too, isn’t it time for that innovation as well?
i beg to differ with anon. the measure says a candidate can designate ANY party to be next to his or her name. Totally a bad idea for republicans.
which is why the republicans who read down that far, will vote against this measure. Its not about top two so much as allowing dems and others to get the coveted ‘republican party” next to their names. YOu think RHINO now?
Why would we want to copy what California’s elections look like?
I see Independents WINNING here!
Might be time to switch parties if this goes through!!!
let’s call this what it is: a chance for primary losers to run again on the ballot in the general anyway. what would be the point? “oh we need access to the most choices.” BZZZZZ wrong answer. you don’t after the primary.
SORRY! i read it closer. this bill actually makes the state partisan races into copies of local school board / municipal races with a built in runoff. bad form, for mostly the same result.
interesting to note the school / city nonpartisan races are the only arena where democrats can score wins, so it’s no mystery which party wants this change more.
enquirer, school board elections don’t have primaries.
i know. my point is that it remakes primaries into nonpartisan vote-then-runoff elections comparable to school and municipal races, presumably because democrats want to expand the only election model where they can score wins because party isn’t mentioned.
So for the SDDP to even have a chance of putting someone on the General Election ballot, they will have to have two candidates for each office to run in a primary, otherwise their primary is cancelled and they have zero votes? Or will the candidates who come in second in the Republican primary change parties and become Democrats, just for the look of the thing?
I am thinking it just eliminates the primary, and gives us a general election, with a run-off.
And this is going to benefit the SDDP? How?
The SDDP is suffering from the DNC platform of racism, gun confiscation, infanticide, and, most recently, sterilization of gay kids. What’s bonkers is that they can’t figure out what their problem is.
the spirit of the change eliminates party prominence. it remakes the statewide office elections to mimic local city and school elections. two groups benefit from elimination of party – democrats hiding their “d” and fringe republicans dragging politics and loyalty oaths into it anyway.
Democrats can hide their D’s anytime they want, but eventually they open their mouths and spew a lot of woke shit.
a thought – nebraska is the only state in the nation with a single house legislature instead of a house/senate bicameral setup. i have not noticed where this impacts how they manage their business in any detrimental way. we could be different than other states with a change like the nonpartisan wide open general with top two runoff for these statewide offices and it wouldn’t result in a sea change of political orientation or anything, it would just be a different path to the destination. we have to get back to comparing the top two adages – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, and don’t do change for change’s sake.