South Dakota Has a Primary Problem
Joe Kirby, Chairman of South Dakota Open Primaries announced, “We have a primary problem in South Dakota. Only 17% of voters turned out for the June 2024 primary election. It appears over 70% will vote in the November general election. Why the difference? Because many South Dakota voters are denied a meaningful role in the state’s closed primaries.”
“Public officials are quick to criticize voters when turnout is low. But the problem isn’t the voters. South Dakotans have proven they love to vote in important elections. The state’s antiquated closed primary system prohibits them from doing that.”
“The closed primary system made more sense when there were two strong political parties in the state and very few independent voters. But the world has changed. The South Dakota Democratic party has become mostly irrelevant with no Democrat currently occupying statewide office and only about 10% of legislative positions. Meanwhile, the number of independent voters who choose not to affiliate with either party has skyrocketed to 155,000. The number of independent voters in the state far exceeds the number of Democrats.”
“Amendment H is on the November 5th ballot and would solve South Dakota’s primary problem. All candidates for an office would be listed on a single ballot. All legal voters would get that ballot. The top two vote getters would move on to the general election. Most importantly, all voters would get to vote.”
“The state of South Dakota estimates an open primary would attract another 50,000 voters. We think that their estimate is low. South Dakotans have proven at multiple general elections that they will turn out in large numbers when there are interesting and competitive races. Open primaries promise to increase the number of candidates as well the competition in our elections.”
The following chart uses data from the South Dakota Secretary of State’s website.
| YEAR | General Election | Primary Election |
| 2016 | 70% | 21% |
| 2018 | 65% | 27% |
| 2020 | 74% | 28% |
| 2022 | 59% | 32% (Amendment C drew a crowd) |
| 2024 | >70% estimated | 17% |
Kirby added, “We have a primary problem in South Dakota.155,000 independent and not affiliated South Dakota voters currently have little to say about who represents them and leads the state. That’s not fair. Nor is it good for our state. After all, democracy works best when all voters get to vote. Vote YES on H!”
####
We need to fix our broken primary election system. Republican zealots will never allow independents to vote in “their” private taxpayer funded primary, so H appears to be the only answer.
Are the primary statistics of only potential primary voters or of all voters?
For example i couldn’t vote because nothing was on my ballot – no primaries. I would imagine many ballots were empty because of 0 statewide primaries. So I couldn’t vote even if I wanted to. It’s really not a fair statistic.
I was a 4 out of 4 primary voter until this year when nothing (and I mean nothing) was on my ballot so I couldn’t vote if I wanted to.
New round of official dumpster diver candidates being endorsed which is another reason why we need H!
Amendment H is just a better system for electing our elected officials. They will represent more South Dakotans. Yes on H!
Primary turnout is low because by the time we have it, it’s too late to matter.
we used to vote for delegates to our national conventions, to choose the nominees for President and Vice President.
We don’t do that any more.
The delegates are now chosen way in advance, to get them cleared for security.
By the time our primary takes place, the delegate counts are done and the nominees have secured their nominations.
So few of the state and local races are contested, those names don’t even appear on the ballot.
My primary ballot this year consisted of the State Senate race and NOTHING ELSE. No presidential or Congressional candidates, nothing. Other than the State Senate race, it was a blank sheet of paper. No wonder so few people bother to vote.
If you really want to increase voter turnout, move the primary to Super Tuesday. The fact that Joe isnt talking about that tells you he doesnt care about voter turn-out, it’s all hot air
Good points.
Two additional points
This doesn’t deserve to be part of hte Constitution. (I’d vote for it if it wasn’t a Constitutional Amendment)
Similar to moving the date, why aren’t these people interested in moving local elections to be voted on the same date as the primary?
Those who support this Constitutional Amendment have agendas other than what they say out loud (enfranchising Independents in the primary process). All of them.
17% isnt an accurate statistic because so many ballots didn’t have candidates running. It’s not an interest thing it wasn’t even possible to vote.
For example if Dusty Johnson and Taffy Howard were running then every gop ballot would have had a candidate. If democrats had two candidates running for congress they would have had a ballot. As is if there weren’t legislative primaries or a school board or city elections then voting wasn’t even an option.
The entire city of Pierre didn’t have anything to vote on.
Anonymous at 1:17 and 2:13… (I think you’re the same person.)…. Agree with you on all points. Hope my support doesn’t lead to you being shunned by your friends and family.
H will fail. It takes away choices from voters on election day. We need choices in November not in June.
It will take away choices, by giving more people choices. Scintillating logic. Foolproof. Nothing wrong here.
Of course the Dem’s are against H. They rarely have to spend money in a Primary while Rep’s are out campaigning like crazy.
Everyone that wants to run should have to run in the Primary period. No one should get a pass until the General.
GOP is against it too.
H doesn’t change your second point, there will still be a primary and they have to win that to run in the General.
OMG, I just noticed the 17% by looking at the chart.
Using numbers to present a “reality” to deceive and imply something sinister.
Another reason to vote against these guys. They lie.
There is nothing newsworthy in this “news release.” Kirby is repeating the same thing he has been saying for months.
Turnout is always higher in general elections than in primaries, no matter the system. It’s true in the states that have this open primary system also.
First thing that will happen is the top two candidates will all be Republicans. This will cause the Democrats to drop out and nominate their candidates in district caucuses and state conventions.
Next general election there will be one Democrat and two Republicans on the ballot, the R’s will split their votes and the D will win, and the Republicans will also drop out of the primaries.
The whole idea is stupid
Hell yeah on the amendment lettered “H”.
F yeah on the amendment lettered “F”.
Gosh yeah on the amendment lettered “G”.
And many people thought ol’ grudznick was just a VNOE fellow.
If everyone is going to run in the primary, why is there a need for a primary?
every dirt track racing fan knows the heat race winners all make the A feature. we could use a good heat race and this sounds like a plan.
Great point Roger!!!!!!
Taxpayers pay for two public elections every two years. Hardly anyone shows up for the first one and everyone shows up for the second one. Maybe it’s time for a change in the first one to get more voters involved.
This is one of the most misleading efforts I’ve encountered in a long time. The other sides in the marijuana initiative, I understand. But why on earth would any Republican join an effort that would undermine our parties ability to choose our own candidates for the general election? If Democrats one will elect Democrat candidates great if Republicans want to elect Republican candidates great and if independence want to be independent, let them. But don’t let Democrats choose Republicans. Don’t let Republicans choose Democrats. And don’t let people who refuse to pick aside jump in and start choosing candidates for the other people who are willing to stick their neck out. This is the worst initiative on the ballot.
Seeing both leaders of the parties being against this is all I need to know to vote YES!
I’m confused by their strategy to make this about independents not getting to vote. Seems like they should get right to heart of the matter and start talking about how a wacky minority of voters are turning out good legislators in the primary. And because D’s have no game at all, we are all stuck with these whack jobs representing us in the Legislature. In most cases, we’ll send two R’s to the general and then we can choose who represents us in Pierre. This should be appealing to most Republicans because we’ll have two candidates on the ballot. And for Democrats, they barely field candidates anyway. If they care about policy in Pierre at all, they should support this amendment as well.
The premise is wrong. We’re not entitled to good candidates, we need to fight for them. To vote for them. The “wacky minority” you reference is still a minority. Join a party, show up and vote. That’s how you get better candidates. A jungle primary won’t defeat the “wacky minority” if voters still refuse to participate.
Also the premise is wrong that Independents are more sane than members of each party. The Dems seem to have one flavor of crazy and the Republicans have two flavors.
Washington and California have open primaries. Washington had 35% voter turnout in 2022, California had 29%.
Correlation and causation are not the same thing.
The same year, 250,000+ people moved out of Washington and 817,669 moved out of California.
Both states are among those leading the nation in homeless populations.
Is voter turnout in primaries driven up by having open primaries or by dissatisfaction with local governance?
If people don’t bother to vote in primaries is it just possible it’s because they don’t care who is running? And they only vote in the primary when they are mad as hell?
I’m finally seeing rationale arguments against the concept. Still waiting for a legitimate reason for the concept.
I’m not sure there is a more rational arguement than the fact taxpayers fund the primary and exclude some legally qualified tax payers from participating. They should pay their own bills if they want it private.
I am a registered independent and don’t get to vote in primaries I still have to pay for. Seems unjust. If you want primaries where only members of your club get to vote, then your club, and only your club, should have to pay for it.
I believe when one registers as an independent the individual is informed at that time they cannot vote in party primaries. If not, then they should have. You made the choice anyway so stop winning about it. It’s on you.
Whining
1. Winning or whining?
2. Then pay for it yourself.
Whining….if you want to participate then choose a party, otherwise stop bitching about the consequences of your decision.
So, again, you demand I pay for your stuff. Cool. New conservatism is super confusing, but thankfully you have nailed it so succinctly.
Get over it. My taxes are used to pay for many things I don’t use, don’t participate in, and used for nothing more than subsidizing irresponsible behaviors. So cry me a river and stop bitching about the results of your free will decision.
Being forced to pay for your stuff is not my “free-will decision,” so maybe eat shit? I dunno, yeah, maybe eat shit.
We all pay for others stuff and you chose to be independent so go f##k yourself….ya go f##k yourself in your mommy’s basement.
Your tax dollars pay for lots of stuff you don’t get.
Deal with it.
Never forget, everyone: these are the sorts of people who call themselves conservative now. Taking others money for what they want while demanding to keep their own. Lovely squad of individuals.
Never forget, everyone: these are the sorts of people who consider themselves progressive libbies now. Never wanting to deal with the results of their decisions. Irresponsible squad of individuals.
We don’t have a “primary” problem we have a gerrymandered districts problem!
I love how the left points at gerrymandered districts. No doubt, there are so areas in the country where that may be the case. In the SD Legislature, that is not the case. We could let the Democrat executive board draw the lines themselves, and two things would happen — first, they would draw lines throughout downtown Sioux Falls and probably through the reservations trying to get more D districts, and second, they would lose as many or more districts as they currently do.
This is a ploy by liberal republicans to get their candidates through the primary and into the general. They need independents to win a primary because GOP voters keep rejecting them.
Granted the establishment elite* are grifters and arrogant, the anti-establishment* is paranoid and crazy but these “liberal republicans” and other backers of this initiative are beyond out of touch and really stupid.
Do you know how many “logic leaps” and “generalizations” about independents these morons have to make to think “independents” will get their primary candidates into the general?
* These comments are not directed at average voters and patriots in the street. They find all politicians wholly repugnant regardless of political philosophy or registration.