KELOland news posted an article to their website last night with South Dakota Republican Party chair John Wiik, noting that the South Dakota Republican Party is focused on defeating ballot measures this election, including the measure being circulated for a jungle primary; a measure that has seen defeat at the hands of South Dakota voters before, and will likely face strong opposition on attempt number 4, despite being funded by out-of-state interests.
But, not from South Dakota Democrats, who seem unconcerned that they’re going to be relegated to minor party status:
Wiik said if South Dakota voters don’t want to be part of a political party, they won’t be part of the decisions that political party makes, including candidate selection.
“If you’re not active and part of the process of a party, then you can’t tell the party how to do its job,” Wiik said. “Find a party you agree with. Find a party that 80% of your values (you) identify with and join that party. You can’t stay independent and tell the parties how to do their jobs. That would be the words I would say for an independent voter right now.”
and..
Kirby said too often the Republican primary election is the only election that matters. The Sioux Falls lawyer and well-known businessman said political parties can do what they want, but the state should do what’s best for everyone.
and..
The SDDP has not officially taken a public stance on the open primaries ballot measure. During a news conference last year, Democrat Rep. Linda Duba attended in support of South Dakota Open Primaries. She said she’s not concerned if Democrat candidates would be left off November ballots with the top-two primary system.
It’s odd that the state Democrat party wants to be left out of most November elections, along with Independents, Libertarians, etc. But we’ll see how that goes.
I think Kirby’s quote of “political parties can do what they want, but the state should do what’s best for everyone” really highlights this issue. It is as a state, allowing everyone to have a say. The problem is (for the extremists), that we have seen the state is more moderate than the republican candidates, which can be seen with the ballot initiatives opposed by the autocratic officials candidates, yet passed by the voters, and then overturned in the autocratic sham courts. If we are going to be an autocracy in the state of SD, we should at least be controlled by the majority. My preference is less government, but since MAGA came along, that is no longer embraced by the “republican” party, so I think this is needed.
There would be no kristi noem in open primaries.
Mickelson would have been the gop nominee.
The funny thing is Schoenbeck pushed Mickelson out of the race to make room for his buddy Marty, the (not so) heir apparent. Schoenbeck said Mickelson had to “wait his turn”.
“Autocratic sham courts”
Some would call them the branch of government that enforces the constitutionality of laws and resolves disputes under the law, but whatever.
Let us just consider the Amendment A ruling. I don’t know anyone who supported the single subject rule (as its intent) who interpreted recreational marijuana and medical marijuana as two totally different subjects, so much so, that it would invalidate the entire process of voting by 225,000 citizens, and be called “unconstitutional”. We will see what happens with the abortion measure, but we have set up the same overreaching framework to invalidate another vote with HB 1244. The argument will be the state didn’t have time to remove requested signatures (shocker we all know since we didn’t increase the department to accommodate this new law that just so happened to be an “emergency”), therefore the petition process did not follow the state election laws, therefore, the measure is “unconstitutional” and not enacted.
It may be an argument of semantics, but I don’t know how else to describe the SD courts. Open to any feedback!
Autocratic: taking no account of other people’s wishes or opinions; domineering.
Sham: not genuine : false, feigned.
If you “don’t know anyone who supported the single subject rule (as its intent) who interpreted recreational marijuana and medical marijuana as two totally different subjects”, you live in a bubble and need to expand your social circle.
You can like the ruling, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that this interpretation was the reason we needed a single subject rule. I don’t know anyone who was for or against Amendment A that was “confused” by the multiple subjects (the subject was clearly marijuana legalization). Again, my circle may not include those on the lower end of the IQ spectrum so it is fair to say this opinion is biased.
Furthermore, this level of ignorance and precedent set by the SD Supreme Court has invalidated the entire amendment process for all South Dakotan’s. Try to find a “single subject” (as interpreted by the SD Supreme court) where you could ban abortion (is it a ban, or about defining abortion). You reap what you sow.
You know you are feeding the stereotype smoking marijuana makes one STUPID.
Subject #1: Medical Marijuana: Requires medical doctor approval and review of medical conditions and other medications, etc.
Subject #2: Recreational Marijuana: If you are old enough, you may purchase and use for any purpose, including medical.
To reiterate my point, the bumble headed way the proponents of marijuana did the entire thing reinforces why marijuana is called DOPE.
Instead of feeding the perceptions, you should WISE up and follow the rules everyone follows instead of repeating that which makes you appear STONED.
You know, you are just reinforcing ignorance and low IQ with this attempt at ad hominem?
To reiterate my point, the amendment was about marijuana legalization, which nearly everyone who voted on the amendment understood (if they didn’t, I question why, or how they could vote). You would have never come up with this multiple subject concept without the autocratic trolls developing it for you.
Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on the topic of marijuana (which was just an example, yet clearly shows your bias), yet the premise I noted was the precedent set by the courts. For example, how would you write legislation to codify “life” (or when it begins) to the SD constitution in one subject as interpreted by the SD supreme court. Since you posses so much wisdom regarding the subject presented above, I would love to be entertained how you would do this. There is a reason why the repeal of the single subject rule is not on the ballot; it is a challenge to the autocrats, use the same precedent and logic, or show your cards.
Wiik is fighting the good fight. Glad he’s our chairman.
I think his message needs to be that this is a bunch of liberals trying to undo the good work of John Thune, Mike Rounds, Kristi Noem.
I’d discourage him from making this about independents.
Dems might not even nominate a candidate in the general election.
Disparaging 140,000 registered voters by making this about Independents was an enormous gaffe.
This is probably one area where I don’t completely agree with the chair. I think when parties get too deep into fighting ballot measures, it’s a distraction from the core job – winning elections. It’s what caused the downfall of the Democrat Party. They got too far into ballot measures, and it sapped their resolve to be competitive in political races, and they’ve paid the price ever since.
We don’t want to follow their example. By all means, set up a separate committee or a coalition, and work in concert with it. But the party’s #1 job is to put butts in the seats.
I agree with that.
A literal reading of the measure discloses that it would allow ANY candidate to put ANY political party next to the candidate’s name on the ballot. Lie to the voters and say you are a republican, when you are not, have never have been, and have no intent of becoming one.
I guess that is what Jungle Primary means….there are no rules….cheating is fine.
Who comes up with this nonsense?
Who comes up with the ability to define a “republican” then? I just saw the first post on this blog saying Pat isn’t a republican. Who is the one that gets to decide then? Maybe people need to know the issues if they want to vote, and know where there candidate stands on the issues instead of taking a lazy route….?
Perhaps the problem could be rectified by changing the words used to describe non-affiliated voters. We give them too much credit referring to them as “independents.”
They aren’t independent, they are “indecisive,” incapable of making a decision, or we could call them “undecided” which would indicate the expectation of a decision at some point in the future.
Calling them “independents” makes them sound like they stand for something. But it doesn’t mean they stand for anything, it just means they don’t vote in primaries. They don’t show up, and the world is run by the people who show up. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
What an absolute load of crap. You’ve literally just trashed a huge group of people that focuses on policy over party. Paying attention to nuance isnt bad, you aged dingus.
If they are focused on policy, they need to decide which party’s policies they agree with, and register with that party.
But I doubt they are focused on policy. Going door to door during campaign season, I have talked to a lot of people. It’s very entertaining, asking people whom they plan to vote for, and then asking them why. Most people cannot answer the question, or will say “I like his policies,” believing that the conversation will end there. “Which policies are of particular interest to you?” is the next question. Crickets.
Obama supporters were the most entertaining. They were not so much surprised by the question, as angered by it. Asking “why are you voting for him?” seemed to be offensive. And then they just made things up, like “he’s an animal lover and he’s going to ban puppy mills,” and “because he is going to eliminate the cap on social security wages.” uh-huh.
So just what policies are you and your friends concerned about?
I’ll wait while you make something up.
As usual, mind your own business and small government. Neither party seems interested, especially since Trump took over the gop. Tax cuts with no spending cuts aint it. Further, while both are aged, senile holdovers from your generation, Biden at least seems interested in governance. No worries, Anne, you’ll forget about this in 20 minutes and regale me with more anecdotes instead of evidence as usual.
Trump was good on the small government issue, with his deregulatory agenda.
I recall Mike Rounds talking about how much progress they were making with deregulation. I remember Herman Cain ridiculing the EPA’s plan to regulate dust.
The Waters of the United States definitions under the Clean Water Act are a big issue, going back and forth between administrations.
He added 8 trillion to the national debt and you crow about small government. Cool story.
He cut taxes for the wealthy driving up our debt. Created trade wars that the working class shouldered while compounding the supply chain issues of covid. He basically gave every rural state worker a tax increase and the dinosaurs like Anne cheer it on. If Trump won a second term, we would have hit a recession that the wealthy would have loved. Trump will go down in history with the worst record for the middle class.
he didnt cut taxes on the wealthy; he increased the standard deduction and put a cap on deductions for state and local taxes.
If you file the standard deduction, your taxes were reduced. If you itemize, your taxes went up.
It’s the middle class who file the standard deduction, it’s the wealthy who itemize. You can google the income levels of who files the standard deduction and who itemizes for yourself. You should also check your own tax returns. Many people think they are filing an itemized return because they enter all their mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes into a turbotax program, which then crunches the numbers and spits out the standard deduction, because that’s the best deal, and they don’t even realize it.
Funny how all of the “benefits” that didn’t go to the wealthy are now expiring, therefore, our taxes are going up. Weird…
Absolutely correct Anne, they do nothing for anyone and then they complain because they get crappy government.
They can and do vote in Democratic primaries. That’s kinda the point here.
those who oppose jungle primaries best hope Registered Independents (“Indecives”) don’t read this or this measure will become part of our Constitution.* The above Republican “Leaders” are affirming why jungle primaries might be better than delegating such a significant roll in our republican democracy to political party hacks.
* enshrining this policy in the Constitution is its worst feature as it can never be addressed again or amended.
Another definition of Independent in South Dakota is “tired of politics generally and tired of the Republican Party specifically.” Rounds, Johnson, and, to a degree, Thune, try to placate Independents. Noem makes no effort in that direction.