The South Dakota Legislature this week is proposing a new measure to let voters decide whether they want to put the nomination for statewide candidates on the primary ballot to let the primary voters for each political party to decide who their candidates will be, versus the candidates being chosen only by those attending the political party conventions:
House Joint Resolution 5001
Title:
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring all non-judicial offices elected by a statewide vote to be nominated at a primary election.Sponsors:
Representatives Tordsen (prime), Bartels, Chase, Heermann, Kull, Mortenson, Rehfeldt, Sauder, Venhuizen, and Wangsness and Senators Johnson (prime), Crabtree, Davis, Diedrich, Duhamel, Reed, Rohl, Schoenbeck, and ZikmundA JOINT RESOLUTION, Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring all non-judicial offices elected by a statewide vote to be nominated at a primary election.
Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article VII of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, shall be submitted to the electors of the state for approval.
Section 2. That Article VII of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended with a NEW SECTION:
General election candidates for United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, or for any office created by law that is elected by a statewide vote, may only be nominated by means of a primary election. The primary ballot may not indicate or imply any endorsement of any candidate by a political party or by any person or organization.
The Legislature may, by law, establish any necessary procedures to implement this section, including procedures for replacing a candidate for any office who advanced from the primary election but is not able to participate in the general election due to death, withdrawal, or disqualification, and procedures for allowing a party to nominate a candidate for office when no member of that party filed in the primary election for that office.
The bill, prime sponsored by State Representative Tyler Tordsen in the House also boasts the support of Republican Leadership in both chambers, which signals that this proposal is likely to get serious consideration. If placed on the ballot, it would be up to the voters to decide whether they have any interest in it. If the voters decide it’s not something they want to mess with, they can certainly reject the constitutional amendment, and leave it to the political parties.
Predictably, some members of the hard right are already freaking out about it. But, it’s more of a philosophical question. Do we want to expand the group of people who choose who the political party’s nominees are? Or is the juice not worth the squeeze?
Your thoughts?
I prefer we leave the election process as it is. It has served SD well.
#1 Money in politics. PUC seats will now be subjected to energy companies, pipeline companies and other large corporations interests. Can’t get a project approved? Fund a primary challenger. Currently these seats are pretty well insulated from big money influence. Can’t get a pipeline across public lands? Fund a challenge to a public lands commissioner.
A few large law firms could pick the AG. A governor would have a vested interest in funding a friendly auditor.
#2 why does either political party want to open the discussion of how to nominate their parties candidates to voters from the opposite party? That’s what placing this on the ballot does. Independents and Democrats will be a part of deciding this resolution for Republicans and Republicans will be a part of deciding this for democrats.
#3 democrats can’t recruit candidates now. Why would they support making it harder for themselves to get a candidate on the ballot?
#4 last year an amendment was added for Nesiba that allowed dems to nominate at a convention after failing to nominate in a primary. why would Republicans make an exception for a Democrat to get on the ballot at a convention after failing to recruit a candidate for a primary? Republicans will deplete their resources in a primary and then end up getting a last minute convention nominee if a weakened candidate emerges. Can you imagine if we let democrats nominate a candidate for congress, us senate or Governor after the fact? Dumb. Primary or convention but decide which one.
#5 have the sponsors worked with the political parties to see if they support this? Gop Chair Wiik is a Senator as is Democrat vice chair Nesiba. Gop vice chair Mary Fitzgerald is in the house. I would hope all three have been consulted and that the bill would only go forward with their blessing.
#6 Bahmuller and Mehlhaff have a bill that leadership is sitting on and won 48 votes last year and from what I’m told is supported by the SD GOP. How about supporting that and bringing people together rather than being divisive. Haugaard ran against Rhoden. That’s the problem. Fix it and move on.
#7 a republican nominee from convention has not lost a race since 2006. 30-0 since then.
#8 Why would a Democrat want to do anything to stop GOP infighting?
#9 why would anyone campaign in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City if these were primaries? Thats where all the voters live. No need to spend $150 in gas to drive to Lemmon SD anymore.
#10 where will all of this money suddenly come from to fund 8-10 primary races? Dusty raised $100k every 3 months when he first ran for congress. Which is a nice amount but only $400k every year and that’s for congress. Imagine 3 candidates for AG trying to raise $100k a year. When people don’t know anything about them.
How much will a candidate for PUC raise if they aren’t beholden to big utility companies?
Spot on. Everyone complains about how DC delegates nationwide are “bought and paid for” by special interests. Take a look at some of the campaign finance reports of these candidates for the constitutional offices and tell me how they are supposed to expand their footprint to every disengaged voter in the state without a larger outside influence from donors.
Right now some of the convention nominees didn’t go to Lemmon either. Neither did they go to Rapid or Sioux Falls. They just threw their name in at the convention. That happens almost all the time at the Dem Convention.
The money in politics argument is silly. If they aren’t donating now after the convention, they’re not all of a sudden going to start.
The ultimate question is whether we want candidates to be selected by a broader group, or just a group of insiders. It was made broader once in the late 80’s. The question is whether we need to expand the choice again?
Winning candidates all show up. Only Natvig and Haugaard didn’t show up and guess what they lost.
Those interested in a certain outcome will begin to invest in primary candidates who support their agenda. It will start with the PUC.
Associations didn’t used to engage in legislative primaries. Now they do because they know it’s where the elections are.
Donors and corporations are smart enough to know they can’t influence a general election. A republican will likely win. But they know they can influence a gop primary and still win a general. So watch for people with an interest in a certain outcome begin to invest heavily in PUC races etc.
Money will play a big role in future puc races if this passes.
I’m not saying it’s bad I’m just saying it will happen and I prefer to keep money at a distance from politics whenever possible.
Sorry, but it’s not going to happen. If they don’t donate in the general, they wouldn’t start in the primary when the outcome is even less clear.
Bad Idea. Leave it Alone.
a) Qualified Voters have the right to nominate, and place at-large candidates on the ballot;
b) Qualified Voters of the Precincts then elect persons to represent them in both the Legislative Districts and Precincts to hold committee meetings, commissions, and finally conventions, that put those candidates in front of the people forcing them to confront each other at public meetings to gain support of the County Central Committees, Legislative Delegates, and Other Elected persons;
c) All At-Large Candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor, Public Land Commissioner, Public School Commissioner should all be chosen by each Political Party (association of voters) in a convention type format;
d) The Lt. Governor should not be placed on the same ticket as the Governor, nor should the Governor choose his/her Lt. Governor aka running mate. You let the very elected people elected by the Qualified Voters make that determination in a convention format.
e) The Qualified Voters elect the very persons they so support, that best represents them inside their district, their county, their precinct, to make educated, and informative choices for the most important At-large Official Office Holders of the State.
It is the same for the Electors for President, the Qualified Voters of the State, as per each of the National Districts, go to the polls to nominate, and vote for their Choice of Presidential Elector, each Elector then goes to the National Convention to make one choice for President that best represents the voters of that district, and they also cast an additional, alternate choice for President that is someone from outside the State itself. The candidate that obtains 50%, plus 1 of 535 Electors becomes the President.
I encourage the People of South Dakota to lobby the Legislature to create 3 National Districts in South Dakota, an Eatern District and a Western District, and a Central District. The Qualified Voters go to the polls in each of their respective districts to cast public votes for their Candidate for President, and then the Electors go to the National Convention to cast their votes for President, one that has to be their districts choice, and the other choice can be any candidate on a ballot in any other State.
To be a true representative republic, then the voters then must elect representatives, that then act on their behalf to vote for the very people that best represents their districts.
Why do you fear the party at large chosing canidates across the slate? Could it be that you fear you and the rest of the wingnuts being put back in the cellar?
It is not about being scared man. It is about the Organic Foundation of the United States. It is much easier to vet, and discuss candidates in a committee, convention format, as the qualified voters elect legislative delegates (35), County Committeemen (130), and Precinct Committee People (1,300) cause that is the means of placing them in front of the people, and then ask them questions, place them in front of the very people that brings the information back to the voters, to educate them on the reason that the people chose them in the convention. You may need to go back and learn American history and maybe learn the federalist papers to understand the process.
It scares me more that people such as Pat and his Establishment People have this desire to tear apart the Republic, cause they so choose to manipulate the process.
Never trust the Popular Opinion of the Voters cause they become open to interference, fraud, and abuse. Fact.
Hah. I’d say never trust a cabal of self appointed know-it-alls. You want vetting? Let the candidates debate and duke it out in public, no hiding behind executive sessions or other closed door BS. It is certainly fear that compels you, fear of losing whatever tenuous grip on power that you think you wield because you’re a precinct leader.
How do they “duke it out in public” when the Party apparatus prevents debates to protect their own? Having part of the cabal in Pierre chosen by another method is good and gives individuals who want to serve another avenue to so. This system has worked for South Dakota however “the powers that be” are concerned that grassroots citizen precinct committee and delegate persons might not choose the candidates the establishment wants. If leaders such as Schoenbeck are for it, that is a Red Flag for me. Leave the system as it is.
Lets call this what it is. The “election deniers / everyone is currupt except us, of course” folks have learned they can “run the table” at convention….only need 400-500 votes to dictate who be the next Lt. Governor or AG.
But in a primary, its decided by tens of thousands. Way harder for the election denier “tear it all down” types, to put in their kookaberries.
If this measure does not pass, stand by for whackaberries to be AG and Lt. Gov. And they will drive down respect for the GOP…..damaging it irretrievably.
Not for nothing will the way whacky right hate this bill….it would mean they cannot rule by a TINY MINORITY.
There are more than 1,000 persons elected to cast a vote on behalf of the People of South Dakota. You have 35 Legislative Delegates, 1,378 Precinct Elected People, and you have 130 County Committee people that best kno and understand the people inside their respective districts. Stop falling for the Establishment lies and propaganda.
Friendly reminder that Zitterich thought that Koskan’s rape of his daughter was a purely internal family affair and that the state shouldn’t have been involved. Thats the kind of person who thinks that the party at large shouldn’t be allowed to chose their own candidates.
I would point out that the precinct people and at-large delegates are subject to a primary themselves. If a primary is good enough to choose governors, legislators and precinct committeepeople, why are we scared to allow more primary voting?
This bill is nothing more to insure only the rich and those with name-id can get nominated for the starter statewide officers.
Let’s call it the Crony Corruption Amendment.
i WONDER what it would be like to be a conspiracy buff all your life, only to discover you can never prove it?
Arguing that far fewer people should decide who gets in…..hows that for a perverted, upside down notion of democracy? Against letting THE PUBLIC decide?
last time i checked, we are a rePUBLIC.
This is correct. Let Republicans select candidates in the Primary to run as Republican. Let Democrats select candidates in the Primary to run as Democrats. Let Libertarians select candidates in the Primary to run as Libertarians. Period. I don’t want Democrats selecting Republicans and vice versa.
The judge said that is not legal to make libertarians run in a primary. It’s too much work for them.
Primaries are meant for political parties to select candidates for office. These elections are not for the general public. This is the fundamental purpose of a Primary. Everyone gets to vote in the General Election. A “rePUBLIC” is a representative form of government and not a Democracy where every issue is voted upon by everyone. That is what you seem to seek.
Had everyone writing here been at the last few conventions of the Republican party where candidates were picked with a touche’ of malice this bill floats up to higher discussion. That said the seemingly endless rotation of elected Constitutional politicians outside of the Governor but including legislators makes a mockery of Term limits as intended by the public.
One could argue all commission’s should be elected too but that would mean many spots would go vacant with either the Governor or Legislature having to fill them by request anyway. I could see a big battle for the GF&P Commission but that’s it.
Good bill for great discussion and for what it’s worth, “Why not let all the people decide”?
“And Stace no I don’t want on it — would not run for or accept it and have moved on big guy”!
The PUC complaint is bogus. If a candidate for PUC declares his intention to rule one way in a particular matter, he is recused from voting on that matter.
So you can’t run for PUC on a platform of anything.
Wink and a nod.
It’s a good idea. Long time coming. I don’t know what’s going on with the Democrats, but the 2022 Republican convention featured a large faction which voted to raid the party treasury and distribute the funds amongst themselves. Fortunately there were still enough real Republicans in attendance to stop them.
Candidates for statewide races can campaign among the registered voters who aren’t interested in destroying the party.
A smaller group of individuals should be deciding which candidates get endorsed by the parties. Parties are, in essence, private organizations and who they decide to endorse should be left to those who help run the party (delegates). I’d like to see South Dakota move away from this silly notion of primary elections and have each candidate for every partisan office decided at a convention.
We all think the Democrats as a Political Party, have crumbled into irrelevancy. The Republican Party seems a few steps away from facing the same fate. Fact is, the more people involved in selecting candidates, the more people become involved in the affairs of the Party. The Party”s main function is to get out the vote and raise money to support the slate of candidates selected in the Primary.
No one will ever know who the candidate for public lands is. It’s just a fact. Most people don’t know who’s running for the school board.
*except those attending the convention or who care enough to attend local political events; they get multiple chances to meet and get to know all of the statewide candidates. I’ll trust those people over voters who have never heard of the candidates. You’re exactly right about the school board. Same goes for judicial candidates seen on the ballot. It is warm and fuzzy to say we “trust the voters” but do not forget that the convention process currently in place does involve votes from the general public.
when you watch turnout figures for a few municipal/school-only elections, even many legislative primaries in off years, you realize the real voters have a significant level of fatigue or disinterest that has to be factored into this as well.
Good idea, the only ones against this are those select few of the “inner party”. You can only fight the majority for so long, it happens to every generation. Why do you think every old person is bitter, they only get their way for so long? Don’t worry, you can always yell at the neighbor kids to get off your lawn still.
If I were in charge of this blog, I would NOT accept anonymous comments. Wish that there were fewer gutless people involved in government. Stand up and be counted.
Well, you are not.
You need to respect all Public Servants. De Knutson as a Elected Servant. She is correct. You Democrat-Lefties hide behind fake names.
the trumpers benefit from the “anonymous” thing more than dems do. it’s ultimately chilling, if everyone gives their full names and contact data. we’ll be like the gop caucuses cheney describes in “oath and honor” where everyone knows trump is listening on speaker phone so they all pose and suck up instead of honestly discuss.
not to mention the risk of getting swatted by some of the maga squad. that’s a whole extra discussion.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thank you for the laugh, because that is the funniest damn thing I have heard all day.
it’s getting nasty out there. sorry. i’ll be going now.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear. I wasn’t laughing at you. It was the prospect that I need to respect all Public Servants.
i had hoped so. i had someone in the gop women thread get a little threatening with me last night so, yeeeesh. not a fan of this climate.
It’s incredible growing up being told by boomers to never use your real name. Now all of the sudden they’re upset if you don’t! Debate ideas and proposals, not names or the names behind them mayhaps?