Are open primaries the solution to obtaining increased voter turnout in South Dakota primaries? Proponents of Amendment H think so, but in reality, this measure could lead to less political diversity in the legislature and deal a blow to the Democrats and Republicans alike.
Amendment H is centered on the claim that open primaries would lead to less political division and increased voter engagement. The most accurate definition for an open primary (a.k.a. jungle primary) is an election where all candidates from all parties are listed on one ballot for all voters.
The mantra of the effort is “Let all voters vote” – meaning they want voters of all political affiliations to choose from the same slate of candidates in the primary election, rather than having primaries divided by political parties, where only voters registered to that party can participate. This would apply to South Dakota’s elections for the US House, US Senate, governor, state legislature, and county elected offices. The initiative campaign for Amendment H, South Dakota Open Primaries (SDOP), believes that “too many South Dakotans are excluded from the primary process,” and they want all voters to have an “equal voice.”
The problem, however, is that a jungle primary neuters a party’s ability to elect principled leaders – from the left or the right. By combining everyone together, you average everything out. The Republican primary election would be completely eliminated, and the Democrats would rarely have a candidate elected to office.
Our current system has given us a broad spectrum of ideas represented at the Capitol – this is a benefit to the citizens of South Dakota. Whether you consider yourself “far left,” “far right,” or any place in between, there are legislators at the Capitol who are fighting for your values. This healthy clash of ideas gives us a good, competitive system of government.
Averaging everything out doesn’t truly serve anyone.
If we look around the nation, there are only two states who have a jungle primary: Washington and California. Are these states that we wish to emulate? Looking back, we know that Washington was previously a conservative state. When talking with conservative leaders who live there, I was told that two things led to the downfall of Washington State: the mail-in ballot and the jungle primary.
In Nebraska, where a partially open primary was implemented, the state watched their legislature move to the left. A policy ally and friend of mine shared that the system “was set up under the guise of avoiding ‘Washington D.C. partisanship’ – but what happened was all the candidates moved to the middle.” Their state, with a similar political makeup to South Dakota, has struggled to pass basic pro-life bills and has yet to protect women’s sports.
He told me “the only thing you would accomplish is watering down the ability for the Republicans to put forward the best candidate. You’re inviting Democrats to help pick who the person is.” He said South Dakota would see a “more difficult, gridlocked path to passing significant legislation.”
Further problems arise when the amendment itself is critically examined. Dan Ahlers of the South Dakota Democratic Party shared in a guest column that “Amendment H allows candidates to lie about their voter registration. The Attorney General’s explanation states, ‘A candidate may list any party next to their name on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or registration.’ This should be a concern to all voters. We should not be enshrining language in our state constitution that promotes deception.”
While seeking to engage more voters in primary elections and promote political diversity in South Dakota’s public offices is a noble goal, jungle primaries are not the solution. Voters will have the chance to vote on this measure in November, and we encourage you to do your own research on how open primaries have impacted states like Washington and California before heading to the voting booth.
