For decades in South Dakota, the party nominating process for these and other statewide offices, less governors, has involved voting by delegates to political party conventions. The delegates to these conventions are party officials and activists, including county chairman, vice chairmen, state committeemen and women, three at-large elected Republicans per county, and precinct committee men and women—in short, they’re arguably the best informed about candidates in their respective political parties, particularly with respect to being able to gauge “ideological purity” (adherence to party platform planks, etc.).
HB 1198 would change that process by moving the nominations to closed party primaries during which rank-and-file voters of each political party would nominate their candidates for statewide political offices for the general election. [Note: South Dakota is one of a handful of states that nominates candidates by party convention; most states use the primary system.]
The sponsor of both SJR 5001 and HB 1198 is District 14 Rep. Tyler Tordsen (R-Sioux Falls). No one has a window into the hearts of men, but the first-term representative’s testimony in committee and on the House floor appeared to be altruistic but lacking in historical perspective. Mr. Tordsen’s previous introduction of SJR 5001 and the discussion of HB 1198 in committee and on the House floor included a similar refrain—i.e., that the main purpose was to “broaden democracy” by enabling selection of these candidates by the “maximum number of South Dakota voters.” Additionally, in private discussion with opponents—including this author—and also during his public testimony, he conveyed a personal anecdote about how his father was disappointed in not being able to directly vote for Marty Jackley as the Republican candidate for attorney general in 2022.
Yes, altruism with a personal touch, but lacking in knowledge of relevant political history.
There are many reasons to defeat HB 1198—for example, depressing turnout for the Republican Party convention, depressing grassroots enthusiasm for Republican GOTV activities, ideological dilution of candidates, etc.—but the historical political lessons in other states are perhaps the best examples of how the law of unintended consequences will play out in South Dakota if HB 1198 is eventually signed into law by Gov. Kristi Noem.
To believe that South Dakota would somehow be immune to this type of political encroachment and evolution after the passage of HB 1198 is naïve and absurd. The inevitable result will be massive out-of-state dark money contributions over time—essentially the same “buying of elections” that happens in other states.
The Democrats understand this tactical play very well. That’s why their two representatives, Oren Lesmeister and Erin Healy, voted to pass the bill out of the State Affairs Committee. They know that opening up the attorney general and secretary of state to primary elections gives them a real shot at those billets during a general election, particularly if coupled with passage of the open primaries initiative that may be on the ballot during the November general election, which would implement a “jungle primary.”
An open primary is one in which all candidates for the offices governor, state legislature, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, and elected county offices would be on the state’s June primary ballot regardless of party affiliation, with the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, appearing on the November general election ballot. Together with HB 1198, the open primaries initiative would substantially blur the lines between the two major parties by subordinating ideological differences to the influence of out-of-state donations. This would give Democrats leverage in these races through out-of-state dark money donations.
Do Mr. Tordsen and the other Republicans who support HB 1198 wish to go down in South Dakota history as the representatives who helped turn South Dakota from a “red” state to a “purple” state? This is the result of the law of unintended consequences that they are choosing to ignore.
HB 1193 was passed out of the State Affairs committee by a 10–3 vote. After two days of debate on the House floor, the bill was defeated 31 to 36 on Feb. 7. Since the bill could be resurrected in another form through amendments to a pending state senate bill, there is a real possibility that the state House will deliberate on this proposal for a fourth time before the 2024 session ends in March.
