From KELOland, the proponents of a jungle primary, which has either been rejected by voters or failed to achieve the ballot THREE TIMES NOW, are back running it again.
And along with the commencement of circulating their measure, representatives are lying to voters about the level of opposition to the measure which no one wants, and no one has asked for:
Joe Kirby, a lawyer and well-known retired Sioux Falls businessman, is the main sponsor behind the ballot measure to start a top-two primary election in South Dakota. Kirby told KELOLAND News in December 2022 he wants to let all voters vote.
and..
Kirby said he hasn’t heard of any opposition to the Constitutional Amendment but said he could see opposition from the “radical sides of both parties.”
and..
Democrat Rep. Linda Duba was in attendance at the news conference. The Sioux Falls lawmaker said she is supporting South Dakota Open Primaries because it is the right thing to do. She said she’s not concerned if Democrat candidates would be left off November ballots with the top-two primary system.
If Linda Duba wants to make sure no one turns out for Democrats in the fall ever again, that’s her business if she wants to further wreck her party. But the line that Joe Kirby is feeding people is a load of fertilizer. The measure’s main sponsor, Joe Kirby claims “he hasn’t heard of any opposition to the Constitutional Amendment but said he could see opposition from the “radical sides of both parties?”
Well, let’s try the State Republican Party Chairman John Wiik for one.. John Wiik campaigned to be chair of the SDGOP in part telling groups that the party fundraising needs to be robust “to fight off attempts to establish a “Jungle Primary” system in South Dakota.” That’s straight out of the Clay County GOP January minutes. Chairman Wiik is anything but the “radical” side of the party, which is a much different story than this group is claiming.
The State Republican Central Committee has had pretty strong words in opposition of other measures monkeying with the ballot system, and I suspect they will quickly let their opinions be known on this latest attempt to monkey with our ballots.
A literal reading of the language of the proposal, is that any candidate of ANY political stripe, can have themselves listed on the ballot as running as a member of ANY party. So a wild eyed lifelong liberal D can run as a “Republican;” a far right Republican can (why would they?) list themselves as a Democrat. Or Independent.
Who thinks up this nonsense? I call this “The Measure To Allow Candidate Fraud.” Its another take on “my gender is whatever I say it is, today.”
I love ballot measures. But they have one flaw. We let morons file them.
Any real Republican who carefully reads this proposal, will vote NO.
This is another example of people trying to tell political parties how they have to nominate candidates rather than letting their organization decide.
Letting independents vote in party primary
SB 40 getting rid of convention nominations
Jungle primary
If Kirby hasn’t heard of Wiik’s opposition I’m not surprised. The party has been almost non existent since lederman departed.
The parties have never gotten to decide how to nominate candidates. It is dictated by state law. The question as to “what the party wants” is who speaks for the party? Is it the chairman? The convention? Or the party’s wider electorate, who in most cases have nothing to do with selecting the party leadership?
The legislators defer to the wishes of the parties, even their opponents’ parties, regarding statutes pertaining to how nominees are selected. Therefore, the parties do indeed decide how candidates are nominated. After all, it is only logical that each party’s nominee reflects the majority of that party. Jungle primaries defy that logic.
It is a Constitutional Amendment which I think should be used seldom.
It is poorly written.
But, this lifelong conservative Republican supports the concept. Parties have become fiefdoms of special interests on the fringes and no longer deserve the esteem and standing they have in the selection of who is on the general election ballot.
The growth in Independents is an expression of this lost of esteem and they shouldn’t be disenfranchised from a role in who is on the general election ballot for eschewing these special interest fiefdoms.
The legislators defer to the wishes of the parties, even their opponents’ parties, regarding statutes pertaining to how nominees are selected. Therefore, the parties do indeed decide how candidates are nominated. After all, it is only logical that each party’s nominee reflects the majority of that party. Jungle primaries defy that logic.
“The growth in Independents is an expression of this lost of esteem and they shouldn’t be disenfranchised from a role in who is on the general election ballot for eschewing these special interest fiefdoms.”
There are realities to choices. Choose to register as an independent then face the reality you’re not voting in democrat or Republican primaries. One can’t have their cake and eat it too.
Aren’t Independents allowed to vote in Dem primary anyway.
“The growth in Independents is an expression of this lost of esteem and they shouldn’t be disenfranchised from a role in who is on the general election ballot for eschewing these special interest fiefdoms.”
There are realities that go along with making decisions. If one chooses to register as an independent, then the reality is that one is not going to vote in democrat or Republican primaries. That is the consequence of that decision. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Well, corruption has a consequences too. Because disenfranchisement is the party’s answer to an expression of the party’s selling out to special interests, the people are going to pass this Constitutional Amendment. Brilliant. You people deserve what happens.
Open primaries allow for a more direct democracy. Open primaries would increase overall voter turnout, which would allow us to better determine the true will of the people. Why are some against allowing the will of the people determine the outcome of elections?
“Under God the People Rule”
the parties are private organizations which can nominate candidates any way they want.
when did the democrats start allowing independents to vote in their primaries?
Maybe they would be more successful if they stopped that.
The SD Democratic primary is already open to Independents. If the “parties are private organizations which can nominate candidates any way they want,” that’s perfectly fine, but if that nomination process includes the use of taxpayer dollars and resources, as it currently does, then they give up some of that control and leave it to the voters of SD to determine how the primaries are run.
yes I am aware that anybody can vote in the democrats’ primary here. But I don’t know when they started it, and wonder if it triggered their slide into extinction
In Wisconsin, when a voter goes to the polls to vote in a Primary, the poll worker asks, “Which Party Primary are you voting in today?”. The voter responds and is handed a ballot. That’s it. This open process doesn’t seem to have weakened the influence of Parties. They certainly slug it out, with fairly equal representation, every election. Drawing district lines which goes to the winner of the legislative race in a ten year cycle, is the big issue in that state.
Aren’t Independents allowed to vote in Dem primary anyway.
yes indeprndents or non-affiliated voters are allowed to vote in the Democrats’ primaries.
Look where that has gotten them
After watching our super majority trip over themselves inventing reasons to NOT pass a tax cut, we could use a new, larger pool of candidates the next go around. Wasn’t our current Senate President Pro Tempore responsible for passing the largest tax increase in state history a few years ago? Entitlements are for liberals, not our party. Open it up.
grudznick just likes the name “Jungle Primary.” We should call it that no matter what.
It makes me think of Morris Day and the Time.
If you wanted proof Kirby is out-of-touch with people outside the wine and cheese crowd at Minnehaha Country Club and spends too much time at his winter California home, proof is his statement he hasn’t heard of any opposition to this Constitutional Amendment and the only opposition will be from “radical sides of both parties.”
First, there are lots of people who like the current system of primaries. Opposing what Kirby thinks doesn’t make them “radical.”
Second, there are lots of people who only support Constitutional Amendments on issues they think are most critical. People who might support changing primaries but not agree with Kirby this should be enshrined in the Constitution to never be reviewed ever again by the Legislature and having a difference of opinion with Kirby doesn’t make one “radical.”
Finally, it is arguable Kirby is the radical by making this a Constitutional Amendment vs. an Initiated Measure or not first getting legislation introduced for Legislative consideration.
If this passes, it will have overcome a bad vehicle and an out of touch messenger. If it fails, it may or not be based on its merits.