Attorney General Jackley Releases Final Explanations for Proposed “Top Two Primary” Constitutional Amendment

13 thoughts on “Attorney General Jackley Releases Final Explanations for Proposed “Top Two Primary” Constitutional Amendment”

1. The group that proposed this constitutional amendment, South Dakota Open Primaries, says at its website, “We believe that primary elections in South Dakota should be open to all voters regardless of political party affiliation. Under our current system, too many South Dakotans are excluded from the primary process.”

   In other words, this group wants “independents” who don’t want to be affiliated with a party to choose candidates for the parties. This is incoherent, to say the least.

   There is currently nothing keeping independents from voting in primaries. All they have to do is register in one party. If that’s just too hard to do, or offends their sense of being virtuous citizens, too bad. They choose not to choose.

   1. Interesting. So you advocate for utilizing sate law to force independents to register in a political party to exercise their right to vote? FREEDUMB!!

      1. No one has taken away their right to vote. Primaries are how parties pick many of their candidates, so parties control those elections. General elections are open to all voters. Why is this hard for you?

         1. Cliff, when almost a third of voters have no say on who are presented to them on the general election ballot is at best unequal treatment and at worst a form of disenfranchisement.

            It may have been appropriate when less than 10% of the population wasn’t affiliated with parties. But, since people are leaving the parties in droves (and many held hostage to a party registration just for this reason which hides the depth of the disatisfaction with the two major parties), maybe it is time to change that, which is the subject of the Constitutional Amendment and gets us back to what George Washington said was ideal.

            1. George Washington hated political parties, but he never would have said it was “ideal” to disenfranchise the supporters of all but two candidates seven months before the winner takes office.

               South Dakota’s ridiculously early filing deadline for independent candidates violates the Fourteenth Amendment and wouldn’t survive a federal lawsuit.

2. if you’re going to a structure similar to city-school elections, then any candidate getting over 50% in the first vote should automatically win, instead of just having to face a referendum on their winning vote later in the general. it raises the stakes in a good way.

3. Cliff, this measure doesn’t pick who is running under a political party in the general election. They are picking the two candidates who will compete in the general election, two candidate who can declare the party with which they affiliate or not.

   Those who want to change statewide candidate nominee to primaries to “let the people decide” I expect their endorsement of this more encompassing public suffrage proposal, unless of course they aren’t really sincere and honest about their motives.

   1. Anonymous at 8:46…. Thanks for your comment. I know this constitutional amendment is for the primaries only, and I think my initial post makes that clear. Primaries are for parties — so party members solely have the vote to choose their party candidates — while general elections are open to all voters.

      My concern is, why increase the influence of independents, who forever yammer on about how they vote for the individual, not party. It sounds virtuous, but ultimately is solipsism.

      1. Eliminating all but two candidates seven months before the winner takes office arguably violates the Fourteenth Amendment, but so does Cliff Hadley taking money from “solipsistic” independents to pay for his ostensibly more “virtuous” partisan primary.

      2. Cliff: Where in the Constitution does it say primaries are for parties?

         Those primary rules were written when parties meant something.

         1. Anonymous at 3:27… If the 14th Amendment has been violated, I’m confident the primary election laws would have been challenged by now on that ground. But, crickets.

            Anonymous at 9:08… Elections are regulated more by statute than by constitutional means, and parties follow suit. If it were up to me, all statewide candidates would be chosen at party conventions, and along the way I’d repeal the 17th Amendment and return U.S. senator elections to the state Legislature. The Founders were leery of direct democracy, as am I.

            1. The South Dakota law that forced all recognized parties to choose certain candidates via statewide primaries violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was in place for most of the twentieth century without being challenged.

               If it were up to me, all statewide candidates would be independent and equal in the eyes of the law, and no candidate would be given special legal privileges just because that candidate is formally endorsed by a party. No candidate would be legally forced out before the November election, and any necessary “top-two” runoff would happen after that, preferably through ranked-choice voting.

            2. Cliff: “Elections are regulated more by statute than by constitutional means, and parties follow suit.”

               So, the Legislature or the people via a ballot measure determine who gets on the general election, can make changes and your earlier arguments (below) are just an appeal to the status quo which is very weak intellectually:

               “Primaries are how parties pick many of their candidates, so parties control those elections. General elections are open to all voters. Why is this hard for you?”

               “Primaries are for parties — so party members solely have the vote to choose their party candidates — while general elections are open to all voters.”

Comments are closed.