One month before a divisive, low-turnout primary, Open Primaries Amendment had nearly 55% support in South Dakota in recent poll.

@SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota News Watch has a story about a poll conducted in South Dakota in mid-May among 500 participants, noting that the Open Primaries measure was tracking with nearly 55% support among South Dakota voters:

South Dakotans by a wide margin support a constitutional amendment that would change the way the state conducts primary elections, according to a scientific poll of 500 registered voters co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch.

The statewide survey, also sponsored by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota, showed that 55% of respondents favored the plan to change the state’s election format, with 33% opposed and 12% undecided.

That’s a jump in support from a similarly structured November 2023 poll, which showed 49% supporting the measure, 34% opposed and 17% undecided.

Read the entire story here.

This might portend a stormy campaign for those in the Republican Party who oppose this measure, as this polling came before the divisive primary election that was just held, with the lowest turnout in the 30 years of statewide tracking on primary election voter turnout.

Further complicating it for opponents is that the most organized opponent to the measure, the South Dakota Republican Party, finds it’s fundraising at a low point, and may be scrounging for resources to do it’s primary job – support Republican candidates this election – much less to mount an organized effort in opposing a ballot measure, which is secondary to it’s purpose of electing candidates.

I’ve spoken to a number of Republicans who have moved off of strong opposition to Open Primaries to more or less ambivalence in the wake of an election that put some fringe Republicans in the driver’s seat for the fall contest.  And that may not be good for those opposed to the Amendment.

With 55% support before the primary, I’ll be more curious to hear an updated benchmark of where it is after the primary.

That may be even more telling.

38 thoughts on “One month before a divisive, low-turnout primary, Open Primaries Amendment had nearly 55% support in South Dakota in recent poll.”

  1. All taxpaying citizens foot the the bill to pay for holding ALL elections. By what logic should ANY taxpayer be excluded from voting in ANY election? I fully understand that the party hacks and bosses don’t have any interest in allowing all taxpayers to vote in primaries, even though all taxpayers foot the bill.

      2. Instead of no Democrat or far right Republican, Democrats will be left with a more moderate Republican.

        1. Still a massive improvement over the half-man half-sentient turds like Tom Pischke and Phil Jensen going to Pierre to stroke their egos on the taxpayers’ dime.

          2. Exactly. Sane Republicans and sane Democrats get moderate leadership which is what we want. Screw the fringes.

  3. Rs aren’t voting because there are too many dumbass people running making the candidate choice between stupid or stupid.

      1. This is how the Libertarians with Common Sense, like young Mr. Oakes, will make their move.

    2. District 25 had a choice between stupid and intelligent and voted overwhelmingly for stupid

      1. District 25 has so many stupid people in it, the editor of the Moody County Enterprise, who is in bed with the Deadbeat Dad Caucus, (her husband actually testified before a committee that $10K/year is too much to pay for child support) actually wrote that Pischke now has no challenger for the Senate seat in the November election.
        According to the SOS candidate list there is a Democrat from Dell Rapids who is running against him.
        We can only hope….

        1. Pischke is one evolutionary degree away from being an ape. He’s just a straight up dumbass.

          1. He walked around convention like an ape chest pounding about the stomping he gave youngberg. Cool. Your still a dink. Now eat a frickin’ banana and shut your cake hole.

  4. Actually this should be good for most Republicans because there is quite likely to be two Republicans on the General election ballot. It’s also great for the good, solid, normal Republicans running against the crazies in the primaries. Honestly, the only people who would or should logically oppose Open Primaries are the lunatics of the far right and the lunatics of the far left. Since the left can’t win anyway, this is really about the whacky right. In a race between two Republicans in November, the whacky right candidate won’t win and shouldn’t win…. that’s why they oppose open primaries. Most of us normal Republicans should be embracing this change.

    3. So a “Normal” republican is one that needs to rely on democratic votes to get elected?

  5. Noem will come out against this.

    Do Thune? Rounds? Or Dusty?

    What about the SDDP? I would think they’d oppose this also. SD would be like California and only nominate 1 party candidates.

  6. SDDP will also oppose with GOP. Though GOP has yet to send out a press release.

    1. Because of the low turnout primaries creating a situation where the motivated crazies show up to vote for their crazier candidate and the extremists get elected.

    2. Because the establishment lost the last election. So it’s time for rule changes to allow democrats to help “Normal” Republicans get elected

  9. A solid no from me! Let parties regulate themselves, proposed a set of policies and put forward candidates who we expect to advocate for them. Why let Democrats run the GOP and vice versa? Why let unregistered voters speak for people who actually joined a group? If we’re going to do away with party primaries, just get rid of primaries all together. Beef up the signature requirements and put all comers on the ballot in November. Open primaries make no sense. Partisan primaries or no primaries at all.

    2. Then the SD GOP can reimburse the state for the cost of a closed primary. Everyone (R-D-L-I) has their tax dollars go to pay for primaries but can’t vote in them; that’s asinine.

  10. Open primaries are a 250-year regression, born of frustration with the current system and wishful thinking of the alternative. The Founding Fathers were all opposed to parties — what they called “factions” — but a natural inclination of humans is to organize, so parties we have. Open primaries won’t produce better candidates — or better voters — but will favor the dominant party and on occasion favor undisciplined nut cases like Jesse Ventura. Oh joy.

  11. I think we need to make primaries funded by the parties if they are not open to all.

  12. The Kirbys, the Knudsons and the rest of the Harding Hoover progressives in Sioux Falls will finally be able to come out of the Blue closet.

Comments are closed.