(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)
Constitutional Amendment H – SDWC says “is it fair to enjoy the meal, and stick someone else with the bill?” The argument for a YES vote on Amendment H.
Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Establishing Top-Two Primary Elections.
Attorney General Explanation: Currently, to appear on the general election ballot, major party candidates for the following offices must participate in a partisan primary election: Governor, State Legislature, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and elected county offices. Only members of the candidate’s party may vote for that candidate unless that party has opened the primary to voters not affiliated with the party.
Minor party candidates may be chosen by primary or party convention.
Unaffiliated candidates (independents) are only required to file nominating petitions to appear on the general election ballot.
For the listed offices, this amendment requires one primary election wherein all candidates run against each other in their respective races, including major and minor party and unaffiliated candidates. A candidate may list any party next to their name on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or registration. All voters may vote for any candidate. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. If there is more than one candidate to be elected to an office, the number of candidates advancing to the general election is twice the number to be elected.
Primary elections may be held for other offices.
The amendment may be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Fiscal Note: Open primaries would require printing additional ballots at a cost of $0.47 per ballot. The additional cost statewide to counties would currently be approximately $23,667 for each primary election. The share of the total cost for each county will vary. There is no expected cost to state government.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
I’m going to blame State Senator Michael Rohl for this, as he made an argument along these lines that I am very challenged by. As Senator Rohl pointed out in a facebook back & forth on this topic, taxpayers all pay for elections, whether primary or general elections. And as a dyed in the wool conservative Republican, I can’t help but focus on that.
Look at an identical situation. Should those who do not have children in school be able to vote in a school election or serve on a school board? Grandparents? Childless couples? Singles? Or homeschoolers? The obvious answer of course is “yes, they are all taxpayers, and deserve representation and the same vote as others.”
If you’re asking that, you can’t help but ask “What about elections? Is it fair that taxpayers pay for an election that many can’t participate in?”
Should the public at large be excluded from a primary election that they have to pay for just on the basis of a political affiliation? If we’re not going to exclude people because they are childless in school elections or homeschool, then how can we justify excluding people from elections that they pay for as a member of the public on the basis of political affiliation? How can we exclude them because of one word on a voter registration? I am, and always have been a Republican, and I actively participate in the process. But, I’m a bit of a contrarian. And I can’t help but ask whether it is time to address some ‘not always comfortable’ questions about the process?
If political parties want to fund their own primary elections, that ends the debate. Or, as many states – including North Dakota – have done, if the party would want to create an endorsement convention to gather together and endorse candidates on their own, that is another option and is perfectly fine.
But, to argue that the taxpayer-funded primary election, which is administered by public officials, should remain exclusionary to 153,000 South Dakotans – more than the 144,000 that are registered as Democrats – and tell them that you have to pay for the primary election, but aren’t able to fully participate, ..well.. How do you make that argument with a straight face?
The political parties are private organizations. But elections are a very public process.
One of the rebuttals is that the political parties perform a vital vetting process for the public; that registered voters outside of the organizations are incapable of determining the best people to run. SDGOP Chair John Wiik, whom I greatly respect, writes against the measure, providing the Con to Amendment H on the ballot noting it may “well destroy the effectiveness of our system of government by allowing outsiders to participate in selecting candidates to run for office.”
Well, outside to who? Isn’t selecting candidates to run for office part of democracy? The Constitution does not give any one group divine providence to pick the best candidates. That’s left up to the voters. If you’re claiming that people can’t pick the best candidates without someone else pre-picking for them, I don’t think that argument wins.
Another point of debate used against Amendment H is that it will mean that special interests will buy these new elections. That would be an argument where the pot is calling the kettle black. After a disastrous primary election which had the lowest turnout in history, and provided that in many cases, it was the special interests with deep pockets – who didn’t always follow the rules – that won a disproportionate number of elections, how did that serve as a tidal wall against special interests? It did not. At all.
I will probably not make people happy, but when has that ever been my concern?
If it comes down to fairness and the use of public funds for the benefit of all, if the vote was held today, I would say that I am going to vote YES on Amendment H.
This sentence: “A candidate may list any party next to their name on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or registration”, requires a NO vote from me, no matter how reasonable the rest of the amendment may appear to be.
Why would anyone crafting this amendment include such language, unless it’s to enable candidates to conceal their political history & governing philosophy from the voters?
You can literally do the same thing right now.
How is checking a box on a voter registration sheet any different than checking a box on a candidate petition? …it’s the same thing. Quit creating your own reality to fit your own narrative.
That language was selected because it’s the exact same language that was upheld by the US Supreme Court – and with South Dakota’s leaders having a history of challenging the will of the people, it’s important to have a constitutionally proven measure.
If you truly believe all South Dakotans don’t have a right to participate in elections, don’t expect history to remember you as someone that embodies the very ideas and dreams of America and it ability to constantly improve.
All South Dakotans can already participate in a primary. Just not the private Republican party’s primary. They can either change their registration or they can wait for the general. If I have a private club with identified members, why would I allow non-members to come in and vote? And the letter behind the name currently represents the party one is registered with. If this bill passes, Tom Daschle could run and put an R after his name.
If it’s private then the taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for it – but they are paying for it – so it should no longer be private. Vote yes on H.
Another easy no vote.
Why are we putting this in the constitution?
Why are you so protective of OUR Constitution? We control it; we can put anything we want in it. It isn’t some sacred document that can’t be changed. If the current government is not listening and becoming tyrants taking advantage of the public, this is why it is needed.
If the GOP wants a closed primary, the party can reimburse the costs of the election to the state and do so. Otherwise, open it up.
I have said it and will say it again. Just eliminate the primary and let everyone vote in the fall. If no one gets more than 50 percent, the top two can run off a month later. This would save the entire cost of the primary election which seems to be an issue for some. If who is paying the bill is an issue, eliminate the primary and let parties hold conventions to select their candidates as those are paid for by the parties.
Isn’t that how Louisiana does it?
Yes. In their gubernatorial year elections (the year before the Presidential election) they actually vote on Saturdays.
Pat, in your school analogy you left out one flaw. If im a landowner and dont live in the district, I still pay the tax for the district, but I don’t get a vote. I could move to the district but then I would have to build a house, change my residency etc. We have an electorate established on rules for the road. If you want to vote in a primary, register for a party, and vote. This won’t increse turnout, candidates and issues increase turnout. That’s why primaries should be party functions so they can drive the turnout for the general. The government comes in so it’s safe, fair and consistent.
There is no flaw, as everyone is in a school district. And you offer a lot of deference to party organizations – private groups – which can either be robust or falling apart as both major parties have been at recent points in time.
It’s gotten worse. Primaries are too easily controlled by the socialist left and radical right. Conventions even more so. Maybe it’s time for the middle 80% of our country to be represented.
Elk at 8:40 a.m…. Political parties have always been populated by the more wild-eyed among our species, but have to admit, there’s been a sea change in recent years. That middle 80 percent has been demonized by the crazies and media — and even their families and friends — so much that they’ve thrown up their hands in disgust and retreated from the field of combat. I love politics, but I care less and less.
The biggest flaw in Amendment H is the move of the top two to the general election. This would remove real choice in the general election and leave many voters on the sidelines. Amend H would make South Dakota a race to the right.
I agree with your arguments, Pat, but this measure needs to be better written. I don’t know why they complicated the issue by making it a top-two issue. That will have the opposite effect of the sponsor’s intent.
I’m fairly certain the 21 Senate Districts with 1 person running on the fall ballot would disagree that H gives them less choices – as 16 more Districts (416,000 people) would have actual choices on their ballot.