In the June primary, many of the openings in the state House and Senate will be filled by Republicans. Those of us who choose not to belong to a political party will get to pay for the election, but will not get to cast our ballots.
Running in a primary election seems to have become a rite of passage for Republicans in South Dakota. This year there will be 23 Republican primaries for positions in the Senate and 25 GOP House primaries.
Democrats, on the other hand, have one state Senate primary and an exceedingly difficult job of getting anyone at all to run for office. This year they have fielded 13 Senate candidates — with two facing off in a primary — and 33 House candidates. Without a November ballot being cast, Democrats’ inability to field candidates has once again allowed Republicans to maintain their majorities in the Legislature.
South Dakota Democrats’ traditional indifference about getting people to run for office adds all the more importance to the Republican primary. In many cases, for Republican candidates, the primary is the only election they will have.
Many of us will be left on the sidelines on June 2 because the Republicans hold a closed primary. Only voters registered as Republicans are allowed to vote in the primary. Democrats are more open about the process, allowing independents and non-affiliated voters to participate in their primary. That turns out to be an empty offer since Democratic primaries are so rare in this state.
The Secretary of State’s Office is pretty good about keeping voter registration numbers updated, so offering a current view of the numbers is like trying to hit a moving target. At this writing, the SOS website shows 137,696 registered Democrats, 318,491 Republicans, 2,820 Libertarians, 88,123 independents, 69,206 with no political affiliation and 1,134 with “other” political affiliations.
That’s more than 157,000 South Dakota voters shut out of a primary that will dictate the make-up of the Legislature for the next two years.
Opening South Dakota’s primaries is not a new idea. In 2024 voters rejected Amendment H, which would have created what is known as a “jungle” primary with the top candidates, regardless of party affiliation, going on to the November election. Voters decided that a jungle primary is not what we need out here on the prairie, with only 34% of voters in favor. A simple move to an open primary would likely have been more palatable.
To no one’s surprise, both political parties came out against Amendment H. Democrats were worried, and rightfully so, about having their few candidates overwhelmed by the deluge of Republican candidates. As it stands in the current election environment, one of the easiest ways to get on a South Dakota ballot is to be a Democrat.
The Republican argument against Amendment H was all about purity. Only Republicans, it seemed, should choose Republican candidates. That argument ignores the notion that an open primary opens up the possibility of interesting more citizens in the process and the party. Perhaps more importantly for a political party, there’s the prospect of getting the previously unaffiliated interested in making a donation.
If, as they say, only Republicans should decide on Republican candidates, there are other options available. They could choose their candidates in caucuses or the state convention.
Recently in Brookings there was a presentation about “250+ Years of American Civics and News” hosted by South Dakota News Watch CEO Carson Walker and Jon Ruff, an assistant professor of political science at South Dakota State University. At one point they noted that all citizens are held accountable for obeying laws and paying their taxes. Good citizens, they said, are held to a higher standard. They’re responsible for staying informed on the issues of the day and regularly going to the polls to vote.
Maybe Walker and Ruff need to amend their presentation, because the current system shuts out good citizens who choose not to be affiliated with a political party. South Dakota’s closed primary elections ensure that a large chunk of its population is not allowed a voice in choosing its next set of legislators. They do, however, get to see their tax dollars used to pay for the purely political exercise of conducting a primary election.
This commentary was written by Dana Hess of South Dakota Searchlight, an online news organization.
Leave a Reply