Don’t you hate it when your convention results stink? What do you do?
Really. What do you do? Republicans are saddled with Heather Baxter for Secretary of State, and I’m sure I’ve got a potted plant around here or one of my dogs that could fill in nicely. But it doesn’t work this way. The majority has spoken. The results were certified, and we all move forward.
Except in the case of the State Democrat party. They’re having what you might call a “do-over” convention and they’ve provided notice to the Secretary of State that they’re getting together via zoom to make it happen:
The rumor is that they are going to try to fill the blank spot in the Attorney General race they left empty. And who knows, maybe they could dump some of their turkey candidates and put better ones in there. But doesn’t that kind of go against Democratic principles?
Noting the language in their 7/20 letter…
ln accordance with SDCL 12-5-17, this letter serves to notify the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office that the South Dakota Democratic Party will convene its biennial State Convention on Monday, August 10,2026 at 7:00 P.M. CDT.
This is not the first time they’ve cited this law. Because here’s the prior notice..
In accordance with SDCL 12-5-17, this letter serves to notify the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office that the South Dakota Democratic Party will convene its biennial State Convention on Saturday June 6, 2026 at 12:00 P.M. CDT. The 2026 South Dakota Democratic Party State Convention will take place at the Best Western Plus Ramkota Hotel located at 3200 W Maple Street in Sioux Falls.
Two conventions? What does the law they’re citing – 12-5-17 have to say about it?
12-5-17. Biennial state conventions–Time and place–Notice to secretary of state.
Each political party shall hold a state convention in each even-numbered year for the purposes stated in § 12-5-21. The state central committee of each political party shall determine the time and place of the convention. The chair of the committee shall notify the secretary of state at least fifteen business days prior to the date chosen.
Following the nomination is the certification of candidates:
12-5-22. Majority required for nomination by convention–Certification to secretary of state.
Nominations by a state convention shall be made by a majority vote of the votes cast and shall be certified to the secretary of state by the officers of the convention, within three days of the close of the convention. No certification may be received by the secretary of state later than the second Tuesday in August.
In fact, here’s the document they filed:
Looking at SDCL 12-5-17, here’s what I notice..
Each political party shall hold a state convention in each even-numbered year.
In a plain reading of the statute, I take a State Convention to be singular. As in one. Giving further support to the finality of the convention, I look to that second statute, 12-5-22.
Nominations by a state convention shall be made by a majority vote of the votes cast and shall be certified to the secretary of state by the officers of the convention, within three days of the close of the convention.
Which they did, as they certified the results of the convention after the close of the convention.
Yet now South Dakota Democrats want to come back for another bite at the apple and to have another convention. I’m not familiar with any precedent for a political party conducting dual-conventioning when they decided they didn’t care for their results and sought a do-over.
If that’s the case, why haven’t we had it successfully happen in the past? This looks like the party bosses trying to substitute their judgement for those of the broader Democrat flock.
I have no doubt that this will end up in court potentially delaying the ballot as it’s fought over.
Hope they find a streetable AG candidate. We could use one.
Baxter and Russell will not get my votes.
It’s too bad the general election ballots don’t have an option of “somebody else appointed by the Governor” for these jobs
That is not a bad idea – need a constitutional amendment. Vote for “None of the above.”
the law regarding the replacement of candidates needs to be looked at.
We know they can replace a candidate if one resigns by Aug 4. That’s what placeholders are for.
But can they fill a vacancy if no placeholder exists?
The Democrats need to field a candidate for Attorney General. The Republicans rejected a long time states attorney who won an election for judge in favor of a candidate that was censured by the Supreme Court, a candidate whose lawyer told the Supreme Court that his client, Mr Russell, the Republicans current candidate for Attorney General, that his client would never seek the position of a prosecutor in the future. Russell can’t even keep his lawyers promise. Russell fired a secretary who worked for both Republican and Democratic states attorneys. She challenged her firing. She won her case. I don’t know how much money she got but she drove a new car with license plates that read “THXFRC”. ( Thanks Fall River County). To top it off, the judges hired the secretary to work for them. Democrats need to offer an alternative to Russell.
Fitzgerald was, and always has been, unelectable as AG. A local election for a judge is entirely different than AG. Entering the race late, only giving a few hours notice that he was “retiring,” and leaving that circuit in shambles was not a good look. Certainly not the kind of decision making you want to see in that office. He came in 3rd on both votes and only got 11% of the second vote.
Seems like the Hot Springs old grump crowd has entered the chat haha!
12.6.56 specifies the vacancy must be the result of death or withdrawal. Not party negligence.
However, a legal challenge might work to change that. The purpose of elections is to give voters choices and perhaps the law should not present an impediment.
Perhaps Lance Russell should stop referring to himself as “attorney general-elect” until the deadline to nominate candidates is reached.
As long as a convention isn’t specifically adjourned sine die, it’s fair game to reconvene.
that makes sense. They just pick up where they left off
August 11th is the last day a political party can hold a convention and today is the deadline (2 weeks’ notice) to notify the SOS if they intend to hold one on August 11th,
It’ll be interesting to see if their minutes suddenly omit the motion to adjourn.
I know a Democratic candidate is unlikely to win in the general election, but Lance Russell is a disaster of a candidate – and the reason why that position should be on the primary ballot and not left to the incompetent zealots at the convention. Will it be worse than Ravnsborg? That is a true possibility.
If you want to move AG and SOS to primary, go ahead and move all the constitutionals to primaries. Rip off the bandaid now or come back and have to fight it all over again.
Could an Austin Hoffmann or a Monae Johnson run as Independents and be on the ballot in the Nov election. Not sure how that works?
I have always been a Republican and will always be a Republican. I have been asked to run on several different tickets and politely declined.
It is too late for Independent candidates to file. Their deadline was April 28th
The next plan should be to term limit the PUC positions!
I can imagine that when Lance Russell was nominated, everybody in the state with a law license was… surprised?
Let’s just say they were surprised, and omit the associated profanity.
And the Democrats have no candidate, and everybody with a law license was… disappointed.
The Democrats want to fix this, and first they told the Secretary of State their plan to fix this, the same Secretary of State who just got thrown under the bus by the SDGOP. If somebody from the SDGOP complains, her response may be the same one Dick Cheney gave to Patrick Leahy back in 2010.
Classic.
Then the matter will be challenged in court,
by somebody with standing, and a lot of money. Standing and money. The money thing might be a problem for the SDGOP
To be fair, just about everybody on the bench should recuse themselves if they are asked if they know who the Republican candidate for AG is.
This is going to make for great entertainment.
The convention system gave us Jason Ravnsberg and his car Christine.
Then it nearly (3% loss to Jackley) gave us Dave Natvig, known as one of the laziest state’s attorneys anywhere.
Now it gives us Lance Russell, sanctioned by the supreme court.
Long past time for primaries in these races. Let the PUBLIC decide! Conventions are decidedly undemocratic….