Good morning District 27. Proponents of the Constitutional Amendment H to the South Dakota Constitution want to introduce a jungle primary system similar to the California jungle primary system where the two top vote-getters in the primary automatically move on to the general election. The thought behind this proposed amendment is to allow more voters a say during the primary election regarding whom they want to represent them. Remember the South Dakota primary is held on the first Tuesday in June during even years (e.g., 2022, 2024, etc.) This amendment would affect our elections in South Dakota for Governor, State Legislature, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and elected county offices. In other words, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Greens, No Party Affiliates (NPAs), etc would have a say in who is the Republican nominee. Likewise, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Independents, and NPAs would have a say regarding who the Democrat Party nominee would be.
For example, in District 34, there were three Republicans who ran for two spots in the 2024 State House race, but there were no Democrats who ran in the June 2024 Primary. Therefore, anyone who resides in the district that is a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian, Green, or NPA was not allowed to cast a vote in the District 34 house race. As a result, the two top Republican vote-getters are automatically elected to the South Dakota Legislature's House of Representatives in June during the primary election. Their names will not appear on the General Election ballot in November. The candidates will not have to expend additional resources to run in a general election because there were no other affiliated party challenges during the primary election.
Now imagine there are two Republicans and two Democrats running for governor. In the Primary Election in June, the Republicans turn out to vote and the Democrats don’t show up to the polls. Therefore, the top two vote-getters could be two Republicans. Under the proposed Amendment H, the top two vote-getters move on to the General Election. Albeit, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, Libertarians, and NPAs would have a voice in who moves on to the general election, but the danger in this is that you could technically have two candidates from the same party be on the general election ballot in November. Welcome to what is known as the California jungle primary. They have been doing this since 2010 and now it has come to the shores of South Dakota. Consequently, this has eliminated the two-party system in California and could easily happen here in South Dakota with Republicans in the supermajority. In other words, you could have a right-leaning Republican and a moderate-leaning Republican in the General Election for Governor. There would be no Democrat, Independent, Green, Libertarian, or NPA allowed to run in the General Election in November. Consider Budweiser and Bud Light beer for example: Which do you prefer? Both beers taste the same, but only one offers fewer calories - not that big of a difference.
The two-party system may not be perfect, but it provides the voter with contrasting and opposing views on how we govern ourselves. Historically, we have third-party candidates run for office, and generally speaking, the populist platforms these candidates run on eventually get swallowed up by one of the two major parties. This has occurred in past presidential elections (think of the Bull Moose Party under Teddy Roosevelt or Ross Perot of the Reform Party).
Another reason why I am opposed to the jungle party primary system is grassroots candidates, like me, would not be able to participate in the process because of the amount of cash that is required to participate in a crowded field to get your name out there. I can assure you, it is not cheap running in a primary and then ponying up additional funds to run in a general election. It costs thousands of dollars to run for office. The amount of time and money required to run in a voting district such as District 27 is a heavy burden because of its geographical size and location. This may not be an issue for a candidate running for state legislator in an urban district but West River has large legislative districts that are bigger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, making it costly to run a successful campaign. Imagine the amount of money that would be required to run in a Governor’s race or U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. To run in these races already costs a considerable amount of money and would eliminate any grassroots efforts from challenging an incumbent because of out-of-state money coming into a political race. Big corporations, lobbyists, and special interests could seed a candidate’s bid for the primary election eliminating from the field any candidate with grassroots support. This is what has happened in California. Grassroots campaigns cannot gain any traction and therefore, a one-party system rules at all levels of government. A top two vote-getter in a jungle primary is going to be required to raise a lot more money to run for state senate or house. This could deter people who want to make a difference from running for a state-wide office.
The simple solution to this problem is to allow the people to vote during the primary IF there are no candidates from another opposing party running for that particular state-wide office. Getting back to my earlier example, in District 34 only three candidates were running in the Republican State House race and no Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Greens, or NPAs ran for the State House race. No one from the other political parties took out a nominating petition to run for District 34 State House. Therefore, this particular race should be opened up to the voters at large (all registered voters) and be considered the “general election” for this particular race though this race is still conducted during the June Primary Election. This would still allow all voters of all party affiliations to have a voice whether it is during the primary election or the general election. This makes perfect sense, but there again, it may confuse the voters who may be voting in a Democratic Primary Election and see three Republicans on the ballot for the State House Race. The alternative solution would be to make the three-person race in District 34 run in the General Election and make these three candidates skip the June Primary saving the taxpayers the added expense of an unnecessary primary. Either way, I am not convinced that the current Secretary of State could properly manage a primary election with this unique voting twist since the Division of Elections office couldn’t even put the correct June Primary Election date on my certificate of nomination as the Republican Candidate for the State Senate race for District 27. The SOS put June 5th on my original certificate instead of June 4th. Nonetheless, I urge voters to vote NO on proposed Constitutional Amendment H. We don’t need another radical agenda item imported from California coming to the shores of South Dakota. As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broken, why fix it?” God bless.
Комментарии