Giving Power Back to the People: All Party Voters Should Have a Say in Their Party’s Nominee.
By Rep. Tyler Tordsen
In the spirit of democracy, South Dakota has an opportunity to elevate the voices of its citizens through a proposal that would reshape the process of selecting statewide officials. At the heart of this resolution lies a simple yet powerful principle: putting the voters first.
The current method of allowing a small group of people at a partisan convention to determine the candidates for the offices of Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, Public Utility Commissioner, and Commissioner of School and Public Lands seems antiquated in comparison to the broader democratic processes already in place for other positions. South Dakota already entrusts the selection of its candidates for Governor, U.S. Senators, U.S. House Representative, county officials, and legislators to the people.
It’s time to extend this democratic approach to all statewide offices. By supporting this effort, South Dakota can reaffirm its commitment to a government of, by, and for the people. In my opinion, these statewide offices are too important to only let a couple hundred people decide. This proposal would allow ALL registered voters in their party to decide. Our constituents deserve a say.
It’s important to note this proposal is not a mandate but rather a question posed to South Dakota voters on the November 2024 ballot. The resolution proposes a straightforward mechanism: any statewide race with two or more candidates from the same party would be nominated through a partisan primary election. This approach also differs from the Open “Jungle” Primaries concept of California, and instead ensures a tailored solution that fits South Dakota. Election year after election year, people are discouraged in June to see their ballots limited and instead finding these statewide offices of importance are nominated by a small group.
We should let the voters make the decision who should go on to represent them and their party in the general election. Thoughtfully picking the candidate who best reflects the party’s true values and the values of the people. HJR 5001 keeps the spirit of South Dakota’s motto, “Under God the People Rule,” and aligns with our state’s fundamental values of empowering the electorate.
HJR 5001, if passed by your elected legislators, would pose this crucial question to South Dakotans on this November’s ballot. For me that vote is a simple one; let the voters decide if the voters should decide.
we’re only about one or two steps away from being able to ask – what does anyone even need a state party for at this point?
How much will this proposal cost taxpayers? I’d like to see an amendment added that would make the political parties responsible for paying for their endorsement elections (i.e., primaries). The state has no business in paying for partisan elections.
Let THE VOTERS decide? what an amazing notion. Seems like we took that path when we threw out the british.
The convention is so bad he still wants to use it if dems don’t nominate a candidate.
If you ask most people, this is a no-brainer. The legislators know that, too.
The answer to your question, Enquirer, has been obvious to those of us who have been at it a while.
The purpose of a political party is to raise money and get party members elected. THAT’S IT.
If you want to advance a particular or personal agenda, join a PAC.
Don’t like pipelines? Join the Sierra Club. Don’t like vaccines? Join the Anti-vaccination League of America. Think the 2020 election was stolen? Join Save America. And so on….. Whatever your issue is, there is a PAC for that.
this feels like an abdication of the ‘get candidates elected’ thing, then if you wish clarification.
enquirer, the party also engages in recruitment of viable candidates, then it raises the money to promote them, and gets out the vote to get them elected. That is the purpose of a political party.
The job of a precinct committee man or woman is to get out the vote for the full slate of candidates in the general election, not just the one who recruited them for the convention. .
Unfortunately the candidates for constitutional offices have recruited people for those positions just to vote at conventions and didn’t tell them there is a job involved nor did they tell them that they would be attending the convention on their own dime. This would not be a problem if the pawns took their anger out on the candidate who used them (and threw them under the bus as soon as the convention ended) but instead they blame the party and refuse to do their job.
there is as much danger from a mostly disengaged, malleable larger electorate. seems like a wash and adds complexity. just an observation. i do know what party organizations and rank and file members mean to the system, and i guess the danger that democracy faces each day underscores its high value. again, thanks for drawing out these points.
i simply note the low voter turnout on elections that are municipal only. i wonder if adding a big mid structure slate to the primary, won’t give voters another tune-out factor at times. ideal voter behavior is different from real voter behavior.
Why is the majority leader of the senate and house supporting this?
Because maybe they’re tired of a few insane members of the party trying to hijack the convention nominations?
They should be talking to the parties. This is a sneaky thing to do and if it passes will be with a minority of elected republican legislators.
Makes perfect sense. ALL Republicans should have a say in who the GOP nominees are by casting a vote. Pretty antidemocratic to just let the diehards who go to the convention pick.
Finally doing something about this. The only thing I disagree with here is that they don’t just pass something. Instead they are sending it to the ballot. They know what the right thing to do is… they should just do it. It’s time that all members of the party get a say in our candidates. It is way too easy to manipulate the convention process. A primary system makes it more difficult for candidates and for niche special interests to prop somebody up with a couple hundred votes. It should be more difficult for candidates – they should have to work for thousands of votes… not a couple hundred. They should have to prove they can raise money. They should have to campaign for the vote of the nurse, police officer, construction worker, the soccer mom — there’s a lot of Republicans out there who aren’t driving to Watertown or wherever else to go to a convention because they are working a shift or running their kids. Their votes should count as well. Pass this bill, or do one better, and pass this as a law this year.
anon 9:24 AM:
Right on, brother or sister. Why screw around putting this on the ballot? Just pass the darn thing, the voters will love it, and if not, they can refer it.
Its a mystery to me why anyone in their right mind would oppose letting the public vote….UNLESS THEY KNOW THEIR CANDIDATE CANT SURVIVE A PRIMARY!
Legislators are scared of taking ownership. Let the people decide. Let the people decide. They can’t even hold themselves accountable to conflict of interest laws and that’s already in the constitution.
We have serious problems when laws only apply to some and when elections are changed to benefit a specific group.
I agree that what happened in watertown was nuts but Rhoden won and so did Jackley. Unfortunately, Barnett just wasn’t equipped to win.
So what are we really complaining about? That is never going to happen again.
They are so ineffective that they gave it their best shot and still lost. And that was with Noem, Schoenbeck and Mortensen primarying everyone, endorsing, calling for ravnsborg to be impeached. It was quite a storm of division.
Both sides are extremely divisive and are only looking for ways to obtain power. It’s actually very sad to see so much division instead of seeing hands extended in an effort for common ground.
Republicans are not the enemy.
You’re seeing Trump’s rhetoric in action. Aren’t you glad your party just went along with his insanity?
Maybe this is just anti trump?
What many of us are complaining about: the convention delegates who were not there to support the party but to destroy it.
First they attempted to raid the treasury, bankrupt the party, and distribute the funds amongst themselves. That was the first day.
By the second day they boycotted the main fund-raising event of the convention, the Governor’s Dinner, and had their own dinner party in downtown Watertown, again signaling that they had no interest in financially supporting the party.
By the last day they voted against a resolution thanking Dan Lederman for his leadership, and attempted to vote down a resolution of support for the top of the Republican ticket. They declared they would not support the party or the party’s candidates, all the while calling those of us who did support the ticket “RINOs.”
For the most part they had been recruited to attend the convention by Monae Johnson who quickly realized what a bad bunch they actually were and kicked them to the curb.
There is an adage that “rules aren’t made until they are broken.”
Monae’s campaign broke the rules, by recruiting delegates who had no interest in supporting the party or its candidates.
I think we can attribute a lot of what happened to all of the involvement in primaries we’ve seen. There was some bad blood and people made a decision to be destructive. Natvig was a terrible candidate and weak states attorney. Haugaard was out for payback.
They didn’t succeed. Monae was a much better candidate than either of the others. She worked hard. Most of her supporters don’t support her anymore. Most of Barnett’s supporters likely never will. She’s a one term sos like the previous 3.
I’d prefer we kept the convention as is. Most of it is good.
no the conventions started getting out of control in 2014 when a sufficient number of deranged delegates voted in favor of a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Obama for no particular reason, just because. It was a national embarrassment, so the convention rules were changed requiring resolutions and platform planks to be submitted to committees in advance and would no longer be accepted from the floor of the convention.
The funny thing was, the same people who tried to take over the convention and jump off a cliff with it were the same people insisting the country needs a convention of states and assuring all the doubters that there was no reason to worry about a “runaway” convention.
Meanwhile the people who had so enthusiastically signed up to be precinct committee men and women showed they had absolutely no interest at all in doing the job.
This became a source of frustration for county chairmen who couldn’t get them to show up for anything.
So the bylaws committee was formed and tasked with finding a solution to both the problem of runaway conventions and do-nothing precinct committeemen and women.
The bylaws committee never did manage to come up with anything anybody could agree to. There were some pretty good ideas, like having the newly elected precinct committte men and women begin their terms of office after the convention, or holding the convention a month prior to the primary, so that they would hold those positions for two years prior to voting at a convention, which would give them two years to figure out what they had signed up for. They would have two years, for example, to figure out that going to a convention was going to cost them MONEY.
But the bylaws were not changed and we remain at risk of having a runaway state convention, thanks to the same people who assure us that a national convention of states is nothing to worry about. Sure.
There are plenty of good precinct committee persons that I have met in person, and I believe they care for, and are trying to help make the party better. I have met Abby Erickson, Mike Zitterich, Bridget Boyden-Myers for example, and they have tirelessly put in an effort to educate, inform, and gather the voters. They are examples of a true grassroot movement that are trying to positively change the republican party itself aligning it to become more constitutional and to be America first. I have no problem if the party moves a different direction. There are many people that are trying to be good civic leaders and I think they care. You should get together and organize behind them more often.