Senator Mike Rounds Announces Opposition to Amendment V

Vote_no_on_VSenator Mike Rounds Announces Opposition to Amendment V 

MikeRounds official SenatePierre, SD – September 22, 2016 – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds opposes Constitutional Amendment V as an out-of-state effort to hide information from South Dakota’s voters.

“South Dakota’s Constitution gives voters the right to know a candidate’s party on the ballot.  Amendment V would strip voters of that right and instead allow candidates to hide information from voters.  Voters deserve more,” said Senator Rounds. 

Amendment V alters South Dakota’s constitution by merging the Democratic and Republican primaries into one primary and cuts off direct general election ballot access for Independent candidates.  This is similar to the system in place in California.  Amendment V also hides candidate party labels on the general election and primary election ballots.

“South Dakotans deserve to know that Amendment V is using 76% out-of-state money to put California’s merged primary system into our Constitution.  South Dakota works.  We should be proud of our state.  We shouldn’t be looking to California for ideas on how our state should be run,” Rounds added. 

The South Dakota Farm Bureau and the South Dakota Association of Cooperatives also officially opposed the measure. 

“South Dakotans across the state are starting to see Amendment V for what it is: an out-of-state effort to hide the ball from voters.  We are very thankful to have Senator Rounds join the fight to preserve South Dakota’s way of doing things.” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of South Dakotans Against Amendment V.

The Chairman of the pro-Amendment V ballot committee is a Democratic party boss and former statewide partisan candidate.  South Dakotans Against Amendment V is an ad hoc effort consisting of agriculture groups, college students, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

South Dakotans should vote NO on Amendment V in November.  Voters can to find more information.


14 thoughts on “Senator Mike Rounds Announces Opposition to Amendment V”

    1. I definitely will vote no. Even if I didn’t know the substance of it, I know enough to vote no on something Ricky Weiland is trying to foist upon the public.

    1. If you wouldn’t lie to the Independents about what this measure would do NONE of them would be interested…and neither would any Republicans, Democrats, Constitution or Libertarians…No Doubt I’m voting HELL NO on V!

      It’s like Nebraska–A LIE–only the legislature is nonpartisan BUT if you want to vote for anything else people still take partisan ballots as all their statewide offices are still partisan.

      It will improve the system– will make it more partisan not less

      It provides more access –another LIE…only the top 2 candidates advance to the general election…no matter what party it is, thereby limiting choice

      Then to say this is done in other states again is another LIE–no state goes as far as this measure would and HIDE party labels from the voters and have races at all levels from sheriff to US Senator/Gov all have to run together.

      1. Clearly, sir, you and basic logic are not friends. It literally applies a system that has been used in Nebraska for over 80 years to more office

        You are also incorrect by saying that only two candidates could be on the general election ticket. The legislature would just have to specify the rules for a person to get on the ballot just like they currently can (by collecting signatures, filing paperwork etc ). This would just take the parties control away from the public election process.
        Also, why would an independent voter not be interested in something that would give them a chance to actually vote?

        I honestly don’t think that this will eliminate partisanship here, but it will definitely take away some of the control from the parties. I personally would rather that my elected folks answer to my community and not the state party.

        George Washington was a pretty darn smart man when he chose in his final address to warn us about the corruption that parties would choose…. but then again there are always people that feel they have to be part of a group.

        -Retired Party Hack

        1. Apparently you have not retired…and/or you are simply misinformed …

          Here is a sample ballot from the NEBRASKA SOS

          WHAT!! How can this be?! they have Republican and Democrat by their names….

          but we keep being told that V will be like Nebraska…except they don’t tell you the truth, just more lies….V goes way beyond what Nebraska has ever done…It removes the party labels from all offices and applies to all offices, not just the legislature…

          Then V only allows the top 2 to proceed to the general election. 2014 US Senate race we had 4 choices…those choices would be prohibited under this crazy measure called V…

          Nice try…next time bring some facts…

          1. Prepare to put your foot in your mouth. (I learned this in 8th grade civics class, so I’m not going cite this because I just dont have the time, but obviously you know how to use google).
            Amendment V would apply the same SYSTEM that Nebraska uses for state elections. By system, I am referring to the way that a legislative body is organized.

            In that is why I said it is Nebraska’s SYSTEM and applies it to more offices. Yes for some offices they have partisan elections (Governor, US Senate, US House). That is why for offices that you need a partisan ballot. If amendment V passed you would still need a partisan ballot for the presidential election, so it actually would look almost the same. Just like in South Dakota, some of our elections are partisan ( both houses of our legislature, county sheriff etc,) and some are not (mayor, school board, city council, judges, etc).

            Also, I’m sure you didn’t know that the authority to allow a person to petition would still lie with the legislature. That way our representatives, that we send to Pierre could create a legislative rule stipulating that if a certain number of signatures were obtained (obviously it would be higher than required to participate in the primary) then a candidate could still get on the ballot in the general.

            Nebraska was the first state in the country to adopt that system as a state. Some colonial governments did prior to the ratification of the US Constitution.

            You my kind sir, just got education… I won’t educate you anymore or else I would have to charge you tuition. But, just so you can research your heart out I will include a link to google.

            -Regards, Joe


          2. Also, basic American Government is a class you should retake. We couldn’t change that(on a SD ballot initiative, anyway;there will also be the party labels listed for US President/VP) due to that process is controlled at a national level. As someone who lived in Nebraska (and taught there for many years), I have voted many times there and state legislature ballots don’t have labels.
            Here is how it works:


  1. Maybe voters understand if you’re a democrat you’re most likely for bigger government, higher taxes, abortion, more regulation and other anti-American ideas. If the label your party has turns people off, look at the party, not the label!

  2. So if I am for senior security, medicare,decent wages and taking care of all veterans and decent wages which party am i.

      1. How will you know which candidate represents your values? A candidate will pick an issue that he will campaign on – say, second amendment – and make sure that he knows everyone knows he is pro second amendment. That will get him elected. BUT, he is a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and is a liberal on every other issue and will change his mind when elected and vote for gradual erosion of gun rights kinda under the table. A person who runs on a certain party platform will most likely (not in the cases of some RINOs in SD) agree with that platform. And since most people don’t pay much attention to politics anyway, they will vote for the party that most represents their values, assuming that candidate will also support their values. Without the D or R or I, uninformed people will have no idea who they are voting for. You might vote for your neighbor because you like him, but you would have no idea what his political philosophy is. And you will say, the uninformed shouldn’t be voting anyway; and I might agree, but that is not realistic because every eligible person has the right to vote. Vote NO on this issue. And I am so tired of the pro people saying, well Nebraska does it this way; OK, fine; about 48 or so of the other states do NOT. And SD is NOT Nebraska! or California (thank goodness!!)!

      2. How do we know who represents those values if we are just voting for a person – maybe our neighbor and we like him so we will vote for him? How is the uninformed voter (who sadly many if not most of the electorate really are) to know what the basic philosophy of a candidate is if the candidate doesn’t identify with one political ideology or the other? I am sick of hearing that we need to be like Nebraska, or California — NO, we don’t! I prefer to be like the rest of the US who let voters know what their candidates’ philosophy is. SD is NOT Nebraska, or California (thank goodness!!)!

        I candidate can pick one issue that will make him look like a conservative or a liberal, campaign on that, get elected on that, and end up being the complete opposite. As I said, most people don’t really take the time to study the candidates. Keep the party labels!

        And if the Dems are so concerned about independents, how about opening up their primaries to independent voters just like the Reps do?

        1. Springer,
          The candidates still will be members of political parties, and political parties can endorse those candidates the same way any other private group can. The republican party can reach out to their private members and let them know which candidate they support.

          The thing is that the parties would not be in control of the elections, it would be thee people that do. When our elected officials go to Pierre or Washington they don’t have to vote in the peoples’ best interests.

          You are incorrect sir on your last point the Dems open their elections to independents not Republicans.

Comments are closed.